Judgment : 1. The issue involved herein is as to whether the petitioners, who have acquired B.E. Degree after January 1996, are entitled to grant of six additional increments in terms of the Railway Board's letter No No.E(NG)I/93/IC2/5 dated 2.1.1996 and consequential benefits on the basis of the earlier Railway Board letters dated 29.05.1989 and 14.02.1990. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners joined B.E/B.Tech degree courses during the period before January, 1996 and completed their courses after January, 1996. The Railway Board issued a circular No.E(NG)I/93/IC2/5 dated 2.1.1996, discontinuing the payment of incentives in the form of additional increments and granted only lumpsum one time cash payment of Rs.10,000/-for the completion of B.E./B.Tech degree courses. The Railway Board vide the said circular dated 2.1.1996 decided that the existing increment based incentive scheme laid down earlier vide Board's letters dated 29.5.1989 and 14.02.1990 be discontinued and one time lumpsum incentive scheme be introduced for acquiring higher qualification. The petitioners are working as Senior Section Engineer / Section Engineer / Junior Engineer / Safety Officer / Chief Instructor under the respondents. Indisputably, the petitioners joined courses before January, 1996 and completed their courses after January, 1996. 3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the petitioners, having enrolled in the course prior to 02.01.1996, should be governed by the old scheme of grant of six advance increments. The relevant date is not the acquisition of qualification, but the date of enrollment for acquiring the higher qualification. The Tribunal, having considered all aspects of the matter, held as under : “9. Moreover, there is no provision in the scheme of 1996 that an employee who enrolled himself earlier to the scheme will be governed by the prior scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to reward an employoee who acquires a higher qualification. Acquisition of qualification refers to the date of passing of the examination but not mere admission to the course. Therefore, there is no incentive to an employee who fails in the exam even after enrollment. Hence, admission/enrollment is not the criterion for any incentive.” 4. We have examined various aspects of the matter and heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts are indisputable. It is well settled that incentive in the form of increment is admissible on acquiring higher qualification. Hence, admission/enrollment is not the criterion for any incentive.” 4. We have examined various aspects of the matter and heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts are indisputable. It is well settled that incentive in the form of increment is admissible on acquiring higher qualification. But, mere enrollment for higher qualification does not give any entitlement to employees for the grant of incentive on acquisition of higher qualification later on. The incentive can be granted only on acquiring higher qualification. 5. The Supreme Court in a categorical term held that fixing cut-off date is within the power of the employer and that cannot be held as unreasonable or arbitrary unless it is established by sufficient evidence that fixing of cut-off date as adopted by the employer was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Khageswar Sundaray and others [ (2011) 8 SCC 269 ]. It was held that the employer was fully within his power to decide the cut-off date for the employee to become eligible for incentive. 6. The employees are not entitled to incentive on the basis of enrollment for acquiring higher qualification. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to produce any material to establish that the cut-off date was arbitrary and as such, we do not find any infirmity, warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal sought to be impugned in this writ petition. 7. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.