Judgment :- 1. It is stated by the petitioner that he had started his career in the year, 1971, as a Tamil Pandit Grade I. While so, he was given one incentive increment for acquiring the Master Degree in Tamil, with effect from 29. 1979. Later, he was promoted as a P.G. Assistant. In the cadre of P.G. Assistant, he was granted one further incentive for Master degree in teaching, with effect from 1. 1987. Again by an order, dated 18. 1994, he was given another incentive for his P.hd., with effect from 13. 1991. In the month of June 1994, he was transferred to the Municipal Boys Higher Secondary School, Pollachi. However, by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 20.8.1995, the third incentive sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for his P.hd. qualification had been cancelled and an order of recovery had been passed. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.6155 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.17347 of 2006. 2. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the claim of the petitioner that he had got his first appointment as Grade-I Tamil Pandit in the year, 1971, is not correct. The petitioner was promoted from the cadre of Grade-II Tamil Pandit to the cadre of Grade-I Tamil Pandit, only on 11. 1972. Further, it is not correct to state that the petitioner was sanctioned incentive increments (two increments) for possessing the higher qualification in M.A. degree, on 29. 1979. The petitioner was sanctioned incentive increments (two increments) in the promoted cadre of Grade-I Tamil Pandit for possessing the higher qualification in M.A., on 15. 1979. In the promoted cadre of post graduate Assistant the petitioner was sanctioned incentive increment (two increments) for possessing M.Ed. degree for the second time on 1. 1987. 3. It has been further stated that in the promoted cadre of Post Graduate Assistant, the petitioner was sanctioned incentive increment (two increments) for possessing the higher qualification of P.hd., for the third time from 13. 1991 onwards, as per the proceedings K.Dis.No.30/A-1/94, dated 12. 1994, passed by the Headmaster Municipal Higher Secondary School, Karur. 1987. 3. It has been further stated that in the promoted cadre of Post Graduate Assistant, the petitioner was sanctioned incentive increment (two increments) for possessing the higher qualification of P.hd., for the third time from 13. 1991 onwards, as per the proceedings K.Dis.No.30/A-1/94, dated 12. 1994, passed by the Headmaster Municipal Higher Secondary School, Karur. Thereafter, the Headmaster, Municipal Higher Secondary School, Karur, by his proceedings Rc.No.247/A1/95, dated 20.8.1995, had cancelled the incentive increments sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for the promoted cadre of Post Graduate Assistant for the third time for possessing the higher qualification of P.hd. As per the Government orders only two incentive increments (four increments) should be sanctioned to an individual during his whole service period. This position has been clearly mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.1023, Education, dated 12. 1993, and G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education, dated 12. 1993. However, it is not found in any of the Government orders that two incentive increments (4 increments) should be sanctioned in each promoted cadre. Thus, the claims made by the petitioner are devoid of merits. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 20.8.1995, attempting to recover the incentive increments paid to the petitioner for his additional educational qualifications is illegal and void, since it has been passed by the first respondent without issuing a prior notice to the petitioner. No opportunity had been given to the petitioner to put forth his case. 5. It has also been submitted that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, based on which the incentive increments had been granted. In fact, the incentive increments had been granted to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant Rules and the Government orders applicable to him. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had placed before this Court G.O.Ms.No.285, School Education Department, dated 211. 2007, to show that the Government had decided to grant additional increments for obtaining higher educational qualifications. Accordingly, the increments granted in favour of the petitioner could be justified. 7. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had placed before this Court G.O.Ms.No.285, School Education Department, dated 211. 2007, to show that the Government had decided to grant additional increments for obtaining higher educational qualifications. Accordingly, the increments granted in favour of the petitioner could be justified. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 20.8.1995, issued by the first respondent to recover the incentive increments granted to the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order has been passed without notice to the petitioner and no opportunity has been given to him to put forth his case. There was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner based on which the incentive increments had been granted. Further, the petitioner had retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation. 8. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 20.8.1995, is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.