Judgment :- It has been stated that the petitioner had passed S.S.L.C. in the year 1976. He had passed Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 1980 and B.Ed., degree in the year 1981. The petitioner had also obtained a Master of Arts degree in History in the year 1983 and M.Ed. degree in the year 1996. He was appointed, on contract basis, against a secondary grade vacancy in the Secondary Grade Scale from 111. 1987. Based on the demands made by the teachers Association, he was regularized as a Secondary Grade Assistant, with effect from 6. 1988. Based on his educational qualifications, the petitioner was granted four incentive increments in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.745, Education (E-2) Department, dated 6. 1990. In the said Government Order, it was made clear that the incentive increments would be applicable to teachers who were appointed between 6. 1988 and 26. 1989, taking into consideration the date of G.O.Ms.No.666, dated 26. 1989. Since certain audit objections had been raised, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.860, Education, Science and Technology (E2) Department, dated 11. 1995, directing that the scale of pay of the teachers of all categories recruited between 6. 1988 and 26. 1989 should be re-fixed, with effect from 6. 1988 or from the date of their appointments, ignoring the higher start of pay in the revised scale of pay. Though it was stated in the said Government Order that the excess payments made to the teachers by way of higher start should be waived, as a special case, the respondents had taken steps to recover the excess payment of incentive increments made to the petitioner from 6. 1988 to 35. 1995, amounting to Rs.12,166/-. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.2380 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16887 of 2006. 2. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the recovery order, dated 4. 1996, has been issued by the fourth respondent without prior notice to the petitioner. It was also stated that it would suffice if the said order of the fourth respondent, dated 4. 1996, is set aside by this Court instead of the larger relief prayed for in the writ petition. 4. 1996, has been issued by the fourth respondent without prior notice to the petitioner. It was also stated that it would suffice if the said order of the fourth respondent, dated 4. 1996, is set aside by this Court instead of the larger relief prayed for in the writ petition. 4. It has also been stated that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner based on which the incentive increments had been paid to him. Further, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had granted an order of interim stay of the impugned order, dated 4. 1996, and therefore, no recovery has been made till date based on the said order. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, had no refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. In view of the submissions made before this Court and in view of the records available, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent to recover the incentive increments paid to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, since the said order had been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. Further, the order passed for recovering the incentive increments could not be implemented till date, in view of the interim order of stay granted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been in force till date. 7. In such circumstances, the order of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, the fourth respondent herein, in R.C.No.469/A1/95, dated 4. 1996, is set aside and the writ petition stands partly allowed. No costs.