Judgment :- 1. With regard to the first petitioner it has been stated that he was appointed as a secondary grade assistant in the year 1964. While so, by an order, dated 21. 1976, one incentive was sanctioned for his B.Ed., qualification. In the year, 1979, the first petitioner was promoted as a Middle School Headmaster. By an order, dated 2. 1986, another incentive was sanctioned for his M.A. qualification. In the year 1994, the first petitioner was granted the third incentive for his M.Ed. qualification. However, by an order, dated 23. 1995, it was cancelled. 2. With regard to the second petitioner it has been stated that he was appointed as a Primary School Headmaster in the year 1963. While working as a Secondary Grade Assistant, he was sanctioned two incentives for his B.Ed., and M.Ed., qualifications by orders, dated 26. 1985 and 111. 1988. He was promoted as a Middle School Headmaster in the year 1992. In the year 1994, he was sanctioned the third incentive by an order, dated 13. 1994. However, by the impugned order, dated 23. 1995, it was cancelled. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6410 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16017 of 2006. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent denying the claims made by the petitioners. It has been stated that the petitioners were sanctioned the 5th and 6th incentive increments for their acquiring the higher qualifications of M.A. and M.Ed., by the proceedings Rc.49/A1/94, dated 13. 1994. However, it was cancelled by the proceedings Rc.No.2083/A1/94, dated 23. 1995, as the petitioners were not entitled for the incentive increments, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1023, Education, dated 12. 1993. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that no notice had been issued to the petitioners before the incentive increments granted to them had been cancelled. Further, there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners with regard to their qualifications. In such circumstances, the impugned order, dated 23. 1995, directing the petitioners to repay the amounts paid to them, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not been in a position to show that the incentive increments were granted to the petitioners due to their misrepresentation or fraud. In such circumstances, the impugned order, dated 23. 1995, directing the petitioners to repay the amounts paid to them, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not been in a position to show that the incentive increments were granted to the petitioners due to their misrepresentation or fraud. Nothing has been shown by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, by way of records, to substantiate the averments made by the respondent in his reply affidavit. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 23. 1995, issued in reference number Na.Ka.2083/A1/94, is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.