JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.293/A3/2020 dated 12.06.2020 of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to award incentive increments to the petitioner's M.A. and M.Ed., degree with effect from 29.04.1993 with all attendant benefits and privileges in the light of the judgment reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1349 and order dated 05.03.2018 in W.A.(MD)No.895 of 2013 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.) The request of the petitioner herein to award the incentive increments for M.A., and M.Ed., qualifications, with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 29.04.1993, has been rejected by the first respondent herein, through the impugned order, dated 12.06.2020, predominantly, on the ground that the petitioner had already given an undertaking at the time of her appointment that she will not claim incentive increments. 2. This issue has been consistently held in favour of the teachers to whom the incentive increments have been denied in view of the undertaking. In one such decision passed in W.P.(MD).No.57 of 2019, dated 28.02.2020, in the case of A.Masanamuthu Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu and others, this ratio was held in the following manner: “2. The respondents herein have taken a stand that the appointment of the petitioner itself is to the effect that the petitioner will not claim any incentive increment. The issue as to whether such stand taken by the respondents has already been considered by the two Division Bench of this Court. In the case of R.Premkumari Vs. State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government and others, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that a person, who enters into service after having acquired qualification, would be entitled to get the incentive increment and any other view, contrary to the same would be opposed to the right of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs of the order read as follows: '7. The learned single Judge has observed "Incentive increments are granted only for persons acquiring higher qualifications while in service but not to a person, who possesses a higher qualification even before entering into service". 8. The relevant paragraphs of the order read as follows: '7. The learned single Judge has observed "Incentive increments are granted only for persons acquiring higher qualifications while in service but not to a person, who possesses a higher qualification even before entering into service". 8. We do not think the aforesaid observation of the learned single Judge can stand the scrutiny of logic or even reality. The obvious intention in granting an incentive increment is for attracting higher qualified people or for encouraging the existing employees to acquire higher qualification, even though in service, so that the quality of service would improve. This is obviously on the assumption that a higher qualified person could work more efficiently. Therefore, it defies logic as to why a person who had already qualified would not get an incentive increment, if such an incentive increment is given to a lower qualified person in service, who acquires subsequently such higher qualification. Such a differential treatment would not stand the scrutiny of right to equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 9. That apart, if the relevant G.Os are examined carefully, it can be safely concluded that the G.Os in reality do not intend to lay down in the manner it has been now concluded by the learned single Judge. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the G.Os. The underlined portion of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.1.1969 indicates that if a person possessing higher qualification enters into service, his initial pay may be fixed by giving advance increments. Similarly in the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.8.1986, paragraph 2 makes it clear that "the P.G. teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools who possess or acquire Post Graduate qualification in education i.e. M.Ed., Degree shall be granted two advance increments in the scales of pay admissible to them". It is no where contemplated in the G.Os., that the incentive increments would be given only to those who acquired subsequently the qualification, but it would be given to all those who either possess, which means the degree is obtained at the time of entering into service or acquire, which means the degree is obtained after entering into service. Even the subsequent G.Os or the clarifications, no where indicate that in order to be eligible for getting incentive increment, the person has to acquire such higher qualification only after entering into service and not otherwise. Even the subsequent G.Os or the clarifications, no where indicate that in order to be eligible for getting incentive increment, the person has to acquire such higher qualification only after entering into service and not otherwise. Therefore, we are unable to accept the conclusion of the learned single Judge that a person who enters into service after having acquired a higher qualification, is not entitled to get incentive increments. 10. Since the impugned order was passed on the basis that the appellant was not entitled to receive incentive increments having entered into service with higher qualification is now disapproved by us, the authorities are required to consider the matter afresh in the light of the conclusion already made to the effect that the appellant was entitled to receive such increments at the time of entry into service.' 3. Likewise, when the Educational Department had refused incentive increments to some teachers on the ground that they had given undertaking that they will not claim incentive increments, the said issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others Vs. The Correspondent, St.Joseph Middle School, Devakottai Extension, Sivagangai District and others, wherein, the Division Bench had relied upon another Division Bench judgment in W.A. (MD) No. 511 of 2011 and had come to the conclusion that such teachers would be entitled to claim incentive increments for higher qualification. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as follows: 3. The reason for refusing the incentive increment is on ground that the writ petitioners when they were appointed had given an undertaking that they will not claim incentive increment when they acquire higher qualification. 4. Similar issue was considered by the Division Bench in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Louis in W.A.(MD)No.511 of 2011 dated 27.06.2011. After considering the objections raised by the Government, which is similar to objections raised in these appeals, the Court pointed out that the respondent therein, had acquired higher qualification M.Sc., and M.Ed., and acquiring higher education will not prevent the writ petitioners from claiming the incentive increment for higher qualification. Therefore, the order passed by the writ Court, granting relief to the teacher was affirmed and the appeal filed by the State was dismissed. Therefore, the order passed by the writ Court, granting relief to the teacher was affirmed and the appeal filed by the State was dismissed. The State preferred a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.C.C.No.13056 of 2014, which was dismissed by an order dated 25.08.2014. It is seen that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench has been implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. (3d) No.13 School Education Department, dated 06.02.2015. The writ Court, took into consideration, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Premkumari v. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (5) MLJ 1349 ), while granting relief to the writ petitioners.' 4. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered in the aforesaid Division Bench orders and as such, the stand taken by the respondents in refusing to grant incentive increment to the petitioner for possessing higher educational qualification cannot be justified.” 3. The aforesaid decision in A.Masanamuthu's case (supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.442 of 2021, dated 08.07.2021. These decisions are squarely applicable to the petitioner's case and as such, the reason assigned by the respondents cannot be sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 12.06.2020, is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to award incentive increments to the petitioner for her M.A., and M.Ed., degree with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 29.04.1993, with all attendant benefits and privileges, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.