JUDGMENT : C. KUMARAPPAN, J. These writ appeals are arising against the orders of the learned single Judge, which dealt with the withdrawal of the incentive increment in pursuance of the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education dated 24.08.2016, and the consequential impugned proceedings, dated 17.06.2025. 2. Since all the writ appeals are arising against the withdrawal of the incentive increment given to the teachers, they are all taken together for common disposal. 3. For convenience's sake, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the writ Court. 4(a).The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals are that, these petitioners are holding the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers, B.T Assistants, Elementary School Headmasters and Middle School Headmasters in the respondent department. While the petitioners were working in the posts referred to above, they used to take classes for Std. I to VIII. The petitioners, on acquiring higher educational qualifications like M.A., M.Sc., M.Ed., claimed incentive increment on the strength of G.O.Ms No.42 dated 10.01.1969. 4(b). The Government has passed various G.Os regarding incentive increment, in G.O.Ms No.624 dated 13.07.1992, G.O.Ms No.1023 dated 09.12.1993, G.O.Ms No.1024 dated 09.12.1993 and G.O.Ms No.324 dated 25.04.1995. It is the specific submission of the petitioners that, by virtue of G.O.Ms .No.324 dated 25.04.1995, certain condition stipulated in G.O.Ms .No. 624 dated 13.07.1992, so far as to the extent of restricting the area of specialization of higher qualification, was withdrawn and the teachers were granted liberty to acquire higher qualification in any one of the subjects in the higher Secondary syllabus. 4 (c). While so, the respondents issued general clarificatory proceedings on 24.08.2016, in and by which, they withdrew the scheme of incentive increments to the subject, which are not relevant to the classes Ist to VIII Std. Based on such clarificatory proceedings, the respondents issued recovery order. Aggrieved with the same, the individual teachers preferred several writ petitions. In one set of writ petitions, this Court has accepted the contention of the Government regarding relevancy of subject and dismissed the petition. However, in another batch of writ petitions, this Court negated the Government’s contention and allowed the writ petition. Against such orders, both the teachers and the Government have filed the present Writ Appeals. 5. In one set of writ petitions, this Court has accepted the contention of the Government regarding relevancy of subject and dismissed the petition. However, in another batch of writ petitions, this Court negated the Government’s contention and allowed the writ petition. Against such orders, both the teachers and the Government have filed the present Writ Appeals. 5. In all these appeals, the central issue, which requires our adjudication is, whether the higher qualification should be with reference to the subject relevant to the classes I to VIII Std., or in any subject that are in the Higher Secondary syllabus. If this Court arrives at a conclusion that the Higher Secondary syllabus is sufficient, then all the writ appeals of the Government are liable to be dismissed. If the above question is answered negatively, then all the Teachers' appeals are to be dismissed. 6. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates, for the petitioners, and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 7.(a)The main contention put forth by Mr Lajapathi Roy is, by virtue of G.O.Ms No.324 dated 25.04.1995, the restrictions imposed in the earlier G.O.Ms No.624 dated 13.07.1992, were relaxed, thereby the teachers were given liberty to claim incentive increment based upon their higher qualification in any of the subjects, which are part of the Higher Secondary syllabus. 7.(b). The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education dated 24.08.2016 cannot override the G.O.Ms No.324 dated 25.04.1995, and that the above proceedings was issued based upon the unconnected G.O.Ms No.134 dated 15.06.2007 and such G.O deals about promotion and not the incentive increments. In this regard, they relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.2747 of 2023 dated 28.03.2025 (The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and Ors., V.G.Saraswathi ) , wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench after elaborately considering the G.O.Ms .No.324 dated 25.04.1995 and G.O.Ms .No.134 dated 15.06.2007 has held that the restrictions mentioned in G.O.Ms .No.134 dated 15.06.2007 would only applicable to the promotion and not against the granting incentive increment. 7. (c). 7. (c). It is their further contention that the learned single Judge in the batch of writ petitions viz., W.P(MD)Nos.14816 of 2025, vide order dated 29.08.2025 relied upon the two Division Bench judgments held in W.A(MD)No.918 of 2015 dated 17.12.2025 ( S.Thangathai V The Director of School Education, Chennai-600 006 and Others ), and W.A(MD)No.910 ( R.Sakthivel vs The Secretary to Government) dated 24.08.2022 and rejected the claim for incentive increment. According to the petitioner, the facts dealt with in the above cited two cases are not similar to the facts of the instant case. 7. (d). The learned Senior Counsel would also further submit that the entire impugned order in the batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.14816 of 2025 has arisen after the order passed by another learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.22704 of 2018 dated 21.01.2025 in S.Thaha Mohammed Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai, and that an appeal against the later order is pending along with the present batch. Hence, he would contend that the act of withdrawal of the incentive increment based on the executive instruction, is illegal. Hence, prayed to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and prayed to direct the respondents to continue the payment of the incentive increment. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would vehemently submit that G.O.Ms No.624 dated 13.07.1992 had stipulated a specific condition that the higher qualification should be in the subject relevant for students in classes I to VIII. However, through the subsequent G.O.Ms No.324 dated 25.04.1995, though the condition mentioned in G.O.Ms .No.624 were relaxed, the said G.O.Ms .No.324 should be understood in the backdrop of G.O.Ms .No.624. He would further submit that acquiring M.A. in Political Science, MCA or M.Sc., Physics and similar higher qualifications will be of no use in teaching the students studying Standard I to VIII. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the G.O.Ms .No.134 dated 15.06.2007 is indicative of the fact that, any higher qualification, which is of no use for promotion, cannot be the basis to claim incentive increments. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the G.O.Ms .No.134 dated 15.06.2007 is indicative of the fact that, any higher qualification, which is of no use for promotion, cannot be the basis to claim incentive increments. The learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that, since the department has identified the erroneous application of the G.O., it has thought it fit to rectify the mistake by issuing the impugned proceedings, and referred the pay, and as a sequitur ordered to recover the excess pay qua the incentive increment. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal which were filed by the individual teachers, and to allow the writ appeals filed by the department. 9.We have given our anxious consideration to either side submission and perused the materials available on record. 10. As observed supra, the entire case rests upon the identification of the “relevant subject” of higher qualification. Whether it is a subject in the higher secondary syllabus, or in the subject normally teach in standards I to VIII. 11. To answer the above issue, it is relevant to record the trajectory of the scheme of incentive increment. The incentive increment scheme was introduced vide G.O.Ms .No.42 Education Department, dated 10.01.1969. According to the above G.O., the Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T.Assistants are eligible for two advance increments for acquiring the higher qualification in B.T or B.Ed. They are also eligible for one more advance increment if they pass M.A., M.Sc., or M.Ed. As per the above G.O, originally there were no indication about the nature of subject, except naming the Degree qua B.T and B.Ed., and M.A., M.Sc., or M.Ed. 12. But, subsequently, based upon the recommendation of the IV Tamilnadu Pay Commission certain conditions were stipulated vide G.O.Ms .No.907 dated 17.09.1986, wherein it was stated that the higher qualification should be with reference to the area of specialization qua subject normally taught, instead of any subject. The above GO., has also given an illustration that, PG degree in Political Science and Public Administration will be of no use to Tamil Pandit, and the authorities were directed to deny incentive increments in such cases. 13. While so, after the above G.O.Ms .No.907, dated 17.08.1986, the Government has come up with another G.O., in G.O.Ms .No.624 dated 13.07.1992,with diffrent set of conditions. 13. While so, after the above G.O.Ms .No.907, dated 17.08.1986, the Government has come up with another G.O., in G.O.Ms .No.624 dated 13.07.1992,with diffrent set of conditions. For better understanding of interplay between G.O.Ms .No.907, dated 17.09.1986, and Go.Ms.No.624 dated 13.07.1992, this Court deems it appropriate to extract para 1 and 2 of the G.O.Ms .No.624, dated 13.07.1992. “ G.O.Ms .No.624 Dated 13.07.1992 Read again : 1. G.O.Ms .No.42, Education, dated 10.01.1969(as subsequently amended) 2. G.O.Ms .No.907 P&AR(FR II) Dept. dated 17.09.1986. Read also: 1.From the President, Tamilnadu Graduate, Post Graduate Teachers Association Representation dated 31-8-90. 2. From the Director of School Education, Lr.No.140225/K2/89, dated 18-9-90 and 1-10-91. ORDER: In the G.O., first read above (as subsequently amended) the scheme of incentive increments to school teachers for acquiring higher qualifications was introduced. Based on the recommendation of the IV Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, the following orders were issued in the G.O., second read above in regard to the kinds of higher qualification, which really merit advance increments. The higher qualification should be with reference to the area of specialization instead of in any subject. For example, P.G., Degree in Political Science or Public Administration acquired by the Tamil Pandit serves no purpose. In such cases incentive increments should not be sanctioned.” 2.There have been representations to the Government from various Associations for reconsideration of the orders issued in the G.O., second read above, in respect of school Teachers. The Government have carefully examined the matter in consultation with the Director of School Education. They have now decided to relax the restriction imposed in the G.O., second read above so far as the teachers in schools are concerned. 14. It appears that, in view of the stringent conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.907 dated 17.09.1986, various Teachers Association have given representations to the Government for reconsideration of the above G.O. In pursuance thereof, the Government has decided to relax the restrictions imposed in that G.O., and such relaxation is mentioned the in Para -3 of the G.O.Ms .No.624, dated 13.07.1992. It appears that, in view of the stringent conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.907 dated 17.09.1986, various Teachers Association have given representations to the Government for reconsideration of the above G.O. In pursuance thereof, the Government has decided to relax the restrictions imposed in that G.O., and such relaxation is mentioned the in Para -3 of the G.O.Ms .No.624, dated 13.07.1992. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Para-3 as hereunder: “3.The Government accordingly direct that the incentive increment to school teachers for acquiring higher qualification be allowed subject to the conditions laid down below:- (i)Sanction of incentive increments to a teacher for acquiring higher qualification in particular subject to the condition that the teacher will also be required to teach that in addition to the subject teacher used to teach. (ii)In respect of the past cases , those enrolled for courses of higher studies upto the academic year 1991-92, the restriction imposed in G.O.Ms .No.907, P & AR(FR II) Department dated 17.09.1989 shall be relaxed to cover really relevant courses all subjects in the school curriculam. The Director of School Education shall judge the relevance in such cases no arrears of the incentive increment shall be allowed. Monetary benefit of incentive increments in such cases shall be allowed with effect from the date of issue of these orders. (iii)In respect of teachers enrolling during 1992-93 and after sanction of increments shall be restricted to developing area of study and subjects where teacher shortage has been identified. The Director of School Education will identify the subjects for purposes of incentive increment in which teachers will be encouraged to qualify in consultation with the Government in all future case. T he intention is to encourage the teachers to get higher qualification in those specially selected subject. (iv)In respect of physical education teachers incentive increments will be sanctioned in future only in the area of physical education with a view to upgrade physical training. The Director of School Education will identify the courses in this area also.” (emphasis supplied) 15. What emerges from the reading of the above G.O., is as follows: (i) The teacher who got higher qualification in a particular subject, shall also take classes in that subject, if need arises, apart from their regular subject. The Director of School Education will identify the courses in this area also.” (emphasis supplied) 15. What emerges from the reading of the above G.O., is as follows: (i) The teacher who got higher qualification in a particular subject, shall also take classes in that subject, if need arises, apart from their regular subject. (ii) In respect of those who got a higher qualification before the implementation of G.O.Ms .No.624, the Director of School Education will have to decide the relevant subject and sanction increment. (iii) In respect of other cases, qua after the G.O.Ms No.624, the increment will be given for acquiring a higher degree in a developing area of study, and in subject where shortage of teachers is identified. 16. It is in this back ground, within three years of the above G.O, the Government has again come up with another G.O., in G.O.Ms .No.324 dated 25.04.1995. To have a better understanding, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the scanned image of above G.O as hereunder: 17.The above G,O dealt about the condition stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.907 qua with reference to the area of specialization, representation of the Teachers’ association for relaxation of condition and passing of G.O.Ms .No.624, in modifying the condition of G.O.Ms .No.907, and to identify the subjects in developing area of study and to identify the subject in which teachers are in need. Even after the issuance of G.O.No.624 dated 13.07.1992, the Teachers Association, who could wield the power before the Government, has given yet another representation that the condition stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.624 dated 13.07.1992 are not capable of being implemented easily, which resulted the denial of the incentive increments to BT Assistants, and Secondary Grade Teachers. Based upon the above representation, the Government, who is always generous to the teachers, has attempted to redress their grievance and did so by issuing another G.O, in G.O.324 dated 25.04.1995. In the above Government order, they deleted the conditions .(i) to (iii) of para-3 in G.O.Ms .No.624, (extracted in Para 15 of this order). 18. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss about the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.624. (i) According to G.O.Ms .No.624, teachers who would like to acquire an incentive increment can have higher qualification in any subject, provided they need to teach such a subject in addition to their existing subject. 18. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss about the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.624. (i) According to G.O.Ms .No.624, teachers who would like to acquire an incentive increment can have higher qualification in any subject, provided they need to teach such a subject in addition to their existing subject. (ii)The Director of School Education has to determine the relevance of the subject for the grant of incentive increment based on developing areas of study, and in the subjects where the teacher shortage is identified. The above narration makes it clear that the Director of School Education was directed to identify the developing area of study and the subject, where teacher shortage exist. This direction was made to encourage the teachers to acquire higher qualifications in the identified subjects. 19.Now, we must look at the amendment brought in by virtue of G.O.Ms .No.324, in the backdrop of the G.O.Ms .No.624. By virtue of G.O.Ms No 324, the points (i) to (iii) in para 3 of G.O.Ms No.624 was deleted, and in that place the Higher Secondary syllabus was identified as relevant subject. If we read G.O.Ms .No.624, and G.O.Ms .No.324 side by side, the same would give a clear indication that the Government thought it fit that the developing area of study and the existence of shortage of teachers were in the subject of the Higher Secondary syllabus. To justify the above findings, the point, i in para-3 of the G.O.Ms .No.624 had made it mandatory to the teacher to teach the additional subject in which they got the higher qualification. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, if we understand the G.O.Ms .No.324 in the backdrop of point-iii in Para-3 of G.O.Ms .No.624, it would unequivocally indicate that the Government found that the subjects in the higher secondary syllabus were the developing area of study and the existence of shortage in teacher to teach Higher Secondary subjects. Though the above reasoning are not explicitly referred, the proclivity of the issuance of various G.Os would unerringly pointing the above decision without any other hypothesis. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that if any teachers acquire higher qualification in the subject which are the syllabus for the Higher Secondary, then they become eligible to have incentive increment as per G.O.Ms .No.42 dated 10.1.1969. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that if any teachers acquire higher qualification in the subject which are the syllabus for the Higher Secondary, then they become eligible to have incentive increment as per G.O.Ms .No.42 dated 10.1.1969. 20.But the Government contends that, after the G.O.Ms .No.134 dated 15.06.2007, the Government has issued a clarificatory order on 24.08.2016, where the department has stated that, when the subject is not relevant for considering promotion, then such subject cannot be considered for incentive increment. As we have already discussed, through the G.O.Ms .No.324 the Government gave a free hand to the teachers to choose any of the subject in higher secondary syllabus, for higher qualification to acquire an incentive increment. Therefore, when there is a direct G.O for incentive increment, reliance placed on other G.O cannot be countenanced. 21. The other way of looking at the above aspect is to consider the power of the third respondent to issue proceedings dated 24.08.2016. Even in the legislative field, it is trite law that the delegated legislation cannot over ride or supplant the express provision of the main enactment, and that the power to make subordinate legislation could only be derived from the enabling act. But in the case in hand, the proceeding dated 24.08.2016 has neither been issued in pursuance of any enactment, nor the proceedings dated 24.08.2016 is a legislation. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education dated 24.08.2016, is mere letter with erroneous understanding. Accordingly, the same cannot over ride the order passed by the Government vide G.O.Ms .No.324 dated 25.04.1995. 22.At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General. He had relied upon the judgment of S.Thangathai case and R.Sakthivel 's case (cited supra), which were referred by the learned single Judge in the impugned order . 23. But as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Lajapathy Roy, the above two judgments are in no way relevant to the present facts of the case. The S.Thangathai case (cited supra), deals with the Physical education Teacher. As a matter of fact, even according to the G.O.Ms No.624, the Physical Education Teacher cannot claim any incentive increment without acquiring higher qualification in Physical training. The S.Thangathai case (cited supra), deals with the Physical education Teacher. As a matter of fact, even according to the G.O.Ms No.624, the Physical Education Teacher cannot claim any incentive increment without acquiring higher qualification in Physical training. Similarly, R.Sakthivel 's case (cited supra), neither dealt about G.O.Ms .No.324, nor G.O.Ms .No.624, but has arisen against the G.O.Ms .No.155 dated 03.10.2022, which is in respect of the regularization of temporary teachers who were recruited with a condition not to claim incentive increments. In the above cited case, when such specific condition was challenged, the Division Bench set out a general principles in respect of the incentive increments. Therefore, the judgment relied by the Government absolutely has no relevance to the present facts of the case. 24. Contrarily, the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No. 2747 of 2023 dated 28.03.2025 (The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and Ors., V.G.Saraswathi ) is applicable to this case. The above case has arisen in a case which dealt about the G.OMs.No.324 dated 25.04.1995 and G.O.Ms .No.134 dated 15.06.2007. For ready reference this Court deems it appropriate to refer para-9 of the judgment as hereunder: “9.Thereafter, the Government again issued G.O.(Per)No.134, dated 15.06.2007, which related to promotion. There again, the Government extended the promotional avenues to Secondary Grade Teachers to become Middle School Headmasters or Elementary School Headmasters by just obtaining a Bachelor's Degree irrespective of the subject. This malady was sought to the cured by G.O(Per)No.134 dated 15.06.2007, wherein this Government decided to restrict promotion only to those who had obtained graduation in subjects which are taught in the pre-primary, elementary and middle school. Such a restriction was not extended to the grant of incentive increments.” 25.As per the above ratio, the proceedings dated 24.08.2016, which is the root cause for all the litigations, became ipso facto, not binding on the petitioner, and the same is illegal. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that any teacher who acquires a higher qualification in the subjects which are part of the syllabus for the higher secondary classes is entitled for incentive increments as stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.324 dated 25.04.1995. It is relevant to note that these teachers have received the increment for more than a decade. 26. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that any teacher who acquires a higher qualification in the subjects which are part of the syllabus for the higher secondary classes is entitled for incentive increments as stipulated in G.O.Ms .No.324 dated 25.04.1995. It is relevant to note that these teachers have received the increment for more than a decade. 26. Accordingly, in view of the above detailed discussions, the impugned orders, which are refixing the pay, and for recovery is set aside. Thus, the appeals filed by the individual teachers in W.A.(MD)Nos.2748 of 2025, 546, 547, 806, 807, 1596 of 2023, 538, 1394, 2604, 2687, 2708, 2720, 2783, 2784, 874, 2939, 2709, 2688, 2605, 2721, 2689, 2606, 2722, 2607, 2690,2691, 2609, 2610, 2692, 2611, 2612,2613, 2614, 2615, 2616, 2617, 2618, 2619, 2620, 2621, 2622, 2623, 2624, 2625, 2626, 2627, 2628, 2803, 2807,2885, 2890, 2812, 2816, 2878, 2879, 2817, 2749, 2804, 2750, 2880, 2805, 2818, 2819, 2751, 2752, 2753, 2754, 2755, 2756, 2757, 2758, 2759, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764, 2765, 2766, 2767, 2768, 2769, 2770, 2771, 2772, 2773, 2774, 2775, 2776, 2777, 2778, 2779, 2780, 2781 and 2782 of 2025 are allowed, and the appeals filed by the Government in W.A(MD)No.344 of 2025 is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.