ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, J. This appeal is directed against an order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') on an original application filed before it. 2. The respondent was a Head Clerk in the Income Tax Department. He retired from service on 30.6.1995. By an order made on 24.7.1955, the Government decided that LDCs, UDCs, and Inspectors of Income Tax Department should be given two advance increments in the grade in which they were working from the date they qualified in the Departmental Examination prescribed for the next higher grade. By another order made on 8.12.1960,similar benefit was extended to Steno Typists, Stenographers, Head clerks and Supervisors in the Income Tax Department, set out as under : "I am directed to say that the President is pleased to extend the benefit of the orders contained in the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) letter No. 2(19) Ad. VII/53, dated the 24th July, 1955 and subject to the conditions prescribed therein to Steno-Typists, Stenographers, Head Clerks and Supervisors in the Income Tax Department who have qualified or qualify in future in the next higher Departmental Examination i.e. a Steno Typist on passing the Departmental Examination for Ministerial Staff, Stenographer on passing the Department Examination for Inspectors, and Head Clerks and Supervisors on passing the Departmental Examination for Income Tax Officers will be granted two advance increments." 3. Insofar as the Tribunal is concerned, it relied upon the circumstance that when the benefit had been given in the order of 1955 is on the basis of passing a departmental examination prescribed for the next higher grade, similar benefit should have been extended even while extending such benefit when the order was made on 8.12.1960 extending to Steno-Typists, Stenographers, Head clerks and Supervisors. The next higher post in respect of Head clerk is of Inspector and hence he would be entitled to two advance increments. 4. We find this line of reasoning of the Tribunal to be plainly faulty. The order made on 8.12.1960 clearly sets out as to what type of examination a Head Clerk should have passed to claim the benefit of two advance increments. The order clearly stated that Head clerks and Supervisors on passing departmental examination of Income Tax Officers will be granted two advance increments. 5. The order made on 8.12.1960 clearly sets out as to what type of examination a Head Clerk should have passed to claim the benefit of two advance increments. The order clearly stated that Head clerks and Supervisors on passing departmental examination of Income Tax Officers will be granted two advance increments. 5. If that is so there is hardly any justification for the Tribunal either to call upon the Government to produce records of the past vintage or to advert to other cases which would have been made on the facts arising in those cases. In that view of the matter, we think the order made by the Tribunal needs to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly. 6. However, we make it clear that if the benefit had been extended to the respondent pursuant to the order made by the Tribunal by paying two advance increments, the same shall not be recovered. The appeal is allowed accordingly.