The main legal point established is that incentive increments for educational qualifications should be implemented prospectively from the date of the government order, and the authorities have the power to recover excess amounts.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Letter (Ms) No.129, School Education [Pa.Ka.5(2)] 2013-1 dated 17.07.2013 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.88/2014 dated 18.12.2014 and to quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the order impugned correcting the grant of incentive increment for acquiring higher educational qualification in letter dated 17.07.2013.

2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant in the School Education on 01.07.2004. Her services were regularised in the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) with effect from 01.06.2006. The petitioner acquired the qualification of M.Sc., in the year 1999 and further completed M.Phil. course, in the year 2007. The petitioner was sanctioned with incentive increment for M.Sc., Degree on the date of appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant as per the Government Orders in force.

3. The petitioner, admittedly, discontinued the M.Ed., Degree Course and studied M.Phil and accordingly submitted an application for grant of second incentive increment. The second incentive increment for M.Ed., Course was granted by the Government only through G.O.(1D) No.18, School Education Department, dated 18.01.2013. The petitioner states that since the petitioner is eligible for second incentive increment for completion of M.Phil Course, it was sanctioned from the date of passing of the M.Phil., Course and the arrears were paid. Thus, there is no infirmity in granting the incentive increment from the date of passing of the M.Phil Course.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 was issued in order to add qualification of M.Phil degree in the place of M.Ed and therefore, it is construed as benefit granted even prior to passing of G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 and thus, the incentive increment sanctioned to the petitioner from the date of possessing the degree is valid and is in consonance with the Government Order passed. Thus, the consequential orders passed by the respondents, which are all impugned in this writ petition, are liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that M.Phil degree was incorporated for the first time in G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 and prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013, M.Phil qualification was not an eligible qualification for grant of incentive increment. Thus, the Government took policy decision to grant incentive increment only from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 and therefore, the Headmaster, at the instance of the petitioner, had wrongly sanctioned the incentive increment from the date of passing of M.Phil degree, which is otherwise not contemplated in the Government order.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that incentive increment is granted to the Teachers for the purpose of encouraging them to acquire more educational qualification, which would be beneficial to the students as additional qualification would be helpful for imparting better education. In order to encourage the Teachers, the Government implemented the scheme of incentive increment by way of concession. The Teachers are eligible to get two incentive increments in their entire service as per the scheme of incentive increment.

7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner possesses the quali