Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.1598 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner is working as Primary School Headmaster in a Panchayat Union in Trichy District. He obtained M.A. degree through Open University System in November 1994. He was granted incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification. Thereafter he acquired B.Ed., qualification on 18.09.1996. He was granted incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., qualification from 18.09.1996. 3. While so, the first respondent issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.307, School Education Department, dated 112. 2000 stating that the persons, who acquired Post Graduate degree through Open University System, would be given incentive increment from the date of the said Government Order. 4. In view of the said G.O.Ms.No.307, the second respondent issued a proceedings dated 112. 2000, directing his subordinates to recover the incentive increments given for acquiring Post Graduate degree through Open University System before 112. 2000. Based on the order dated 112. 2000 of the second respondent, the third respondent issued an order dated 011. 2001 for recovery of the amount paid towards the incentive increment for acquiring M.A., and B.Ed., upto 112. 2000. The reason for effecting recovery of the incentive increment given towards B.Ed., qualification, was that it was not considered as an independent higher qualification. 5. Hence, the petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.1598 of 2002 (W.P.No.8459 of 2007) to quash the G.O.Ms.No.307, School Education Department, dated 112. 2000 of the first respondent, the order dated 112. 2000 of the second respondent and the order dated 011. 2001 of the third respondent. 6. Heard Mr. R. Saseetharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant of incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., qualification is an independent one and the respondents are not correct in making it as a dependent one. The very purpose of granting increment is for persuading the teachers to acquire higher qualifications and also to acquire knowledge. Therefore, by naturally construing the concerned Government Order, the respondents erroneously came to the conclusion that the incentive increment for B.Ed., is not an independent one. 8. The very purpose of granting increment is for persuading the teachers to acquire higher qualifications and also to acquire knowledge. Therefore, by naturally construing the concerned Government Order, the respondents erroneously came to the conclusion that the incentive increment for B.Ed., is not an independent one. 8. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the later G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education Department, dated 17.02.2006, granting incentive increment from the date of acquiring Post Graduate degree through Open University System instead of from 112. 2000, the impugned orders dated 112. 2000 and 011. 2001 are to be quashed. As far as G.O.Ms.No.29 is concerned, G.O.Ms.No.29 was issued as an amendment to the said G.O.Ms.No.307. Hence, the respondents cannot recover the incentive increment given to the petitioner. 9. In view of G.O.Ms.No.29 referred to above, a direction is issued to the respondents not to recover any amount paid towards incentive increment for acquiring M.A., through Open University System and also acquiring B.Ed., from the petitioner. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.