The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for incentive increments based on additional qualifications, the permissibility of recovery, and the importance of performance-based incentives for employees.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 248/A4/2020, dated 19.05.2020 and the consequential order issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.248/A4/2020, dated 21.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to disburse the incentive increments to the petitioner for acquiring higher qualification of M.A degree from 11.09.2022 onwards, within a stipulated time limit.)

Common Order:

1. The petitioners before this Court are Secondary Grade Teachers and they have applied for incentive increments, stating that they have obtained additional qualifications. Accordingly, they were also provided with incentive increments. The Department has now ordered for recovering the incentive increments holding that the additional qualifications obtained by the petitioners are not being taught at the level of Elementary Education. Challenging the orders of recovery, the petitioners have moved this Court.

2. Sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioners have obtained the additional qualifications (degrees) only after getting prior permission from the Department and the degrees were obtained only from Government recognized Universities.

2.2. Only after due verification by the Department, the petitioners were granted with incentive increments. There was no misrepresentation on their part.

2.3. Before passing the impugned orders of recovery, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners.

2.4. As per the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.01.1969; G.O.Ms.No.324, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25.04.1995; and G.O.Ms.No.83, School Education Department, dated 28.04.2017, the petitioners are eligible for incentive increments.

2.5. The following decisions were relied upon by the petitioners in support of their contention:-

i) State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334; and

ii) Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475.

3. Countering the arguments advanced by the petitioners'' Counsel, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents made his submissions as follows:-

3.1. The petitioners have obtained additional qualifications of M.Com., or M.A. (Economics) degrees. They are Secondary Grade Teachers and therefore, the additional qualifications obtained by them are not helpful to the students, to whom they are taking classes. Therefore, they are not eligible for any incentives, however, incentive increments were given to them on misrepresentation.

3.2. During Audit, the aforesaid discrepancy was found and therefore, orders have been passed to recover the same, since it is causing loss to the public exchequer.

3.3. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.134, School Education Department, dated 15.06.2007, the petitioners are not entitled for any incentive increments, for the additional qualifications acquired by them in Commerce and Economics. This position has also been clarified by the Director of Elementary Education vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.017731/E1/2015, dated 24.08.2016.

3.4. He has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his case:-

i) Union of India and Another v. Narendra Singh, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750; and

ii) I.C.A.R and Another v. T.K.Suryanarayan and Others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3108.

3.5. Taking cue from the decision of the Patna High Court in Ram Binod Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, reported in MANU/BH/0437/2007, he submitted that even if there