B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J.: This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in a matter relating to payment of incentive increments. Incentive increments for teachers were first introduced in G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.1.1969. Qualifications were prescribed in the said Government Order, but these higher qualifications entitling a person or the claim of incentive increments were to be acquired in usual course by regular study. After some years of issuance of the said Government Order, Distance Education System was introduced and the Universities started giving degrees both at Under Graduation and Post Graduation Levels under the caption ‘Open University Degrees’. Series of representations have been made, which culminated in the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.307, School Education (E7) Department, dated 15.12.2000, by which the Post Graduate Degrees have been recognised as equivalent to the degrees obtained by regular stream of study. In so far as the equivalence of the degrees is concerned, there cannot be any issue now, because of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.307 referred to above. 2. The question for consideration is as to whether the incentive increments, which were hitherto granted by the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.1.1969, are payable with effect from the date of passing of the Open University examination or the date of the above beneficial order in G.O.Ms.No.307. It is not disputed that but for this G.O.Ms.No.307, dated 15.12.2000, the appellant was not entitled to claim any incentive increment. 3. Incentive increment is not a matter of right, but it is only on account of the gratuitous act of the Government in granting the same. When the right of the appellant flows from the above gratuitous act of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.307, dated 15.12.2000, which says that those who obtain degrees through Open University System of Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu may be given incentives from the date of the said order, i.e., 15.12.2000, no interpretation can be placed contra to the said clear wording, and if any Officer has interpreted in a different manner by twisting the same and granted increment to the appellant from the date of obtaining the Open University Degree, i.e. from 4.6.1996, the appellant cannot be said to be vested with any legal right to claim the same. 4. The learned single Judge has rightly relied upon the division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 25.4.2002 rendered in W.P.Nos.1256 and 5657 of 1999. 4. The learned single Judge has rightly relied upon the division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 25.4.2002 rendered in W.P.Nos.1256 and 5657 of 1999. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the said judgment has got no application on the facts of this case. But we have perused the same and even though it did not relate to incentive increments, the interpretation which has been given by the division Bench has got a bearing on the adjudication of this case. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there is another judgment of a learned single Judge rendered in W.P.No.12912 of 1999, but the said judgment cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. No doubt, the learned Judge has dealt with G.O.Ms.No.307, dated 15.12.2000, but it is on the premise that the persons who have obtained the Open University Degrees from Annamalai Open University were considered eligible for incentive increments and there could not be any discrimination for the similarly situated persons, who obtained degrees from Mysore Open University. But, the issue as to whether the incentive increment should be granted with retrospective effect was not gone into. Even if the judgment is read as having upheld the contentions that the incentive increments were payable with retrospective effect, i.e., from the date of obtaining the Open University degree, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the learned single Judge. The judgment under appeal, which has taken a reasoning in line with the judgment of the division Bench mentioned supra, is correct. Even on our independent reasoning, not basing upon the judgment of the division Bench in W.P.Nos.1256 and 5657 of 1999, we are of the considered view that when the appellant has got no right to claim incentive increments, but such incentive increments having been granted are purely gratuitous in nature, the benefit can accrue only from the date of the order which is so specifically mentioned in the said G.O.Ms.No.307 itself. We can understand Government Order if it is ambiguous in nature. But the Government Order is so specific and in no uncertain terms states that the incentive increments are payable only from the date of issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.307. When such is the clear language employed, there is no scope for reading in between the lines. 5. We can understand Government Order if it is ambiguous in nature. But the Government Order is so specific and in no uncertain terms states that the incentive increments are payable only from the date of issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.307. When such is the clear language employed, there is no scope for reading in between the lines. 5. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the learned single Judge by holding that the incentive increment, which has been granted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.307, dated 15.12.2000 to the persons who obtain degrees under Open University System, is effective only from the date of passing of the Government Order i.e., from 15.12.2000 and not with retrospective effect. 6. Yet another argument has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the amounts already paid for the period from 4.6.1996 to 14.12.2000 should not be recovered, and in aid of his argument, he cites the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, (1995)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 18. In the said case, an excess of payment was made to a Librarian on account of upgradation of the payscale and when the same set at naught, that was questioned. But the Supreme Court held that the order setting at naught the payment of the same is valid in law. While upholding so, the Supreme Court had directed the authorities not to recover the excess amount paid. The said case related to relaxation and there was misconstruction of the provision relating to relaxation It was not the case of a benevolence shown, as is in the instant case. The facts of the case have got no bearing on the facts of this case and, in any event, the power which vests in the Supreme Court under Art.142 of the Constitution of India is not available to the High Courts under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the reason mentioned supra, we dismiss this writ appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.