So we are to prove that, given $f:\;N^ + \to N^ + $, we have
$$ \bbox[lightyellow] {
\eqalign{
& f\left( {f\left( {m + 1} \right)} \right) - f\left( {f\left( m \right)} \right) = f\left( {f\left( {m + 1} \right) + 1} \right) - f\left( {f\left( m \right) + 1} \right)\quad \left| {\;\forall m \in N^ + } \right.\quad \Rightarrow \cr
& \Rightarrow \quad f\left( {m + 1} \right) - f\left( m \right) = \Delta \,f\left( m \right) = const\quad \left| {\;\forall m \in N^ + } \right. \cr}
}$$
which means
$$ \bbox[lightyellow] {
\eqalign{
& f\left( {f\left( {m + 1} \right)} \right) - f\left( {f\left( m \right)} \right) = f\left( {f\left( {m + 1} \right) + 1} \right) - f\left( {f\left( m \right) + 1} \right) \cr
& \quad \quad \Downarrow \cr
& f\left( {f\left( m \right) + 1} \right) - f\left( {f\left( m \right)} \right) = f\left( {f\left( {m + 1} \right) + 1} \right) - f\left( {f\left( {m + 1} \right)} \right) \cr
& \quad \quad \Downarrow \cr
& \Delta \,f\left( {f(m)} \right) = \Delta \,f\left( {f(m + 1)} \right) = \Delta \,f\left( {f(m) + \Delta \,f(m)} \right) \cr}
} \tag{1}$$
In the post it is further specified that $f$ is
a strictly monotone increasing function.
and according the definition of monotonic function as per Wikipedia
a) either the monotone specification is superfluous, and the function is just strictly increasing,
b) or it is actually meant that it is strictly increasing and with monotone increase.
So let's examine both cases.
a) strictly increasing
The image of $f(m)$ will not coincide, in general, with its domain. So from (1) we cannot deduce the claim
in general and therefore we shall reject the hypothesis.
For example, a function like this one
$$
\begin{array}{c|ccccc}
m & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \cdots \\
\hline
{f(m)} & 1 & 3 & 6 & 8 & \cdots \\
\end{array}
$$
gives
$$
\begin{array}{l}
f(f(2)) - f(f(1)) = f(3) - f(1) = 5 = \\
= f(f(2) + 1) - f(f(1) + 1) = f(4) - f(2) = 5 \\
\end{array}
$$
but
$$
f(2) - f(1) = 2\quad \ne \quad f(3) - f(2) = 3
$$
b) strictly increasing and with monotone increase
In this interpretation it is meant that
$$ \bbox[lightyellow] {
\eqalign{
& m_{\,1} < m_{\,2} \quad \Rightarrow \cr
& \Rightarrow \quad \left\{ \matrix{
f(m_{\,1} ) < f(m_{\,2} ) \hfill \cr
\left( {\Delta \,f(m_{\,1} ) \le \Delta \,f(m_{\,2} )} \right)\; \hfill \cr} \right.\quad \vee \quad \left\{ \matrix{
f(m_{\,1} ) < f(m_{\,2} ) \hfill \cr
\left( {\Delta \,f(m_{\,1} ) \ge \Delta \,f(m_{\,2} )} \right) \hfill \cr} \right.\quad \Rightarrow \cr
& \Rightarrow \quad \left( {0 < \Delta \,f(m_{\,1} ) \le \Delta \,f(m_{\,2} )} \right)\;\quad \vee \quad \Delta \,f(m_{\,1} ) \ge \Delta \,f(m_{\,2} ) > 0 \cr}
} \tag{2}$$
This tells us that $\Delta f$ is either non-decreasing or non-increasing, and identity (1) that
in various points it is stable, thus in this acception the claim follows immediately.