V.Revathi Vs The State of Tamil nadu

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned G.O.(Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020 G.O.(Ms).No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 15.10.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶20

__________ Page1 of 4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2026:MHC:2119

¶23

WP No. 21332 of 2026

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sasikala For Respondent(s): Dr.R.Gouri Government Counsel for R1 Mr.Anand Subramanian for R2-4

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶27

The writ on hand has been instituted to set aside impugned G.O. (Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020 G.O.(Ms).No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 15.10.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶28

Writ petitioner was appointed as Typist on 16.03.2015 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. She passed Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part I on 30.12.2015. However, Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part II was not cleared. The Government has taken a policy decision cancelling the scheme of sanction of advance increment in all the departments vide G.O.(Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020. Granting advance increment is a concession extended to the employees on acquisition of certain additional qualification. It is a policy decision of the Government. Employees have no vested right to claim advance increment, since it is a concession extended and said scheme has been cancelled by the Government vide impugned G.O.(Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020. Since it is a policy decision of the Government, and further, the

¶29

Page2 of 4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

2026:MHC:2119

¶32

WP No. 21332 of 2026

¶33

petitioner has not cleared the requisite departmental test, relief as such sought for deserves no merit consideration.

¶34