The judgment established the conditions under which recovery of incentive increments was permissible, emphasizing the need for performance-based review of incentive increments for Teachers.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.573/Aa2/2020, dated 12.10.2020 and quash the same.)

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 same were obtained by misrepresentation. 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 G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.01.1969, the petitioners are eligible for incentive increments. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020, which was referred in the impugned order is not applicable to them.

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 Government has taken a policy decision not to provide any incentive increments, based on the additional qualifications acquired by the Teachers, vide G.O.Ms.No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020. This Government Order was subsequently clarified by another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 15.10.2020.

3.2. Earlier, incentive increments were granted for additional qualifications, however, the same has now been restricted by way of G.O.Ms.No.37, P & AR Department, dated 10.03.2020. From the date of issuance of this Government Order, ie., from 10.03.2020, nobody is entitled for any incentive increments for their additional qualifications, even if such additional qualifications were acquired much earlier. However, without verifying this Government Order, incentive increments were provided to the petitioners, after the cut-off date, ie., 10.03.2020. Therefore, the orders of recovery have been passed.

3.3. 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.

3.4. He has also relied upon the following decisions:-

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 is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, the employer can still order for recovery.

4. This Court paid it''s anxious consideration t