Judgment : 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer. He acquired M.E.Degree in Irrigation and Water Management at the cost of the Government before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.97, P&AR Department dated 5.7.2010. The said G.O had withdrawn the incentive increment for acquiring M.E Degree at the cost of the Government. Since the petitioner has acquired M.E Degree before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.97, the petitioner has claimed incentive increment for acquiring M.E Degree course as given to others. 4. This Court has allowed the similar claim in an order dated 10.9.2012 in W.P.No.2703 of 2012 (K.Murugan vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai -9). Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgement is extracted hereunder: "5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court dated 10.8.2012 in W.P.Nos.21006 to 21008 of 2012. In the said judgment, this Court has categorically held that G.O.Ms.No.97 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR IV) Department dated 5.7.2010 is prospective and therefore, the persons who acquired M.E.Degree before the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.97 are entitled to advance increment. 6. I have perused the said judgment. Paragraph No.7 in the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder: "7. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 5.7.2010 would go to show that it is purely prospective in nature. There is nothing to indicate that it has got retrospective operation. It is too well settled that any Act, Rule, Regulation or Government Order, which is , pure and simple, procedural in nature, is always retrospective unless a different intention is shown either expressly or impliedly in the said Act, Rule, Regulation or Government Order itself. Similarly, if any Act, Rule, Regulation or Government Order relates to a substantive right of a party, it is always prospective unless a different intention has been shown in the said Act, Rule, Regulation or Government Order itself. Here, in this case, G.O.Ms.No.97 does not either expressly or impliedly state that it has got retrospective operation. Instead, there is an indication that it has got prospective operation. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.97 cannot take away the substantive right accrued to the petitioner to have the benefit of two advance increments. Here, in this case, G.O.Ms.No.97 does not either expressly or impliedly state that it has got retrospective operation. Instead, there is an indication that it has got prospective operation. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.97 cannot take away the substantive right accrued to the petitioner to have the benefit of two advance increments. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for two advance increments." 5. In the light of the above, the respondents are directed to grant two advance increments to the petitioner for acquiring M.E. Degree, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to pay the arrears within a period of six weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.