Judgment :- 1 The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent to recover the incentive increment with retrospective effect, have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2 The petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1988. All the petitioners had qualification of teacher training and on the recommendation of V Pay Commission, the petitioners were granted advance increment in view of additional qualification held by them. 3 The State of Tamil Nadu, thereafter issued a letter stating therein that incentive increment was not available for the teachers training qualification to the teachers recruited after 27.06.1989, as this benefit was applicable only to the teachers who appointed before 01.08.1988. 4 On the basis of the Government order, teachers recruited between 01.08.1988 to 27.06.1989 were given the benefit of incentive increment to the teachers holding qualification of teachers training. This was objected to by the audit department. In order to implement audit objection, the impugned order was passed to recover the advance increment paid to the teachers who were appointed between 01.08.1988 and 27.06.1989. 5 The order was also passed by the State Government on 08.11.1995 for refixation of pay of those teachers recruited between 01.08.1988 to 27.06.1989 with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of their appointment. 6 It was also directed that excess amount paid to the teachers be waived as a special case. The impugned orders are challenged by the petitioners that incentive increment for higher qualification were granted in the year 1995 and therefore, it was not open to recover the same after six years. 7 It is not disputed that before ordering recovery, no notice was issued to the petitioners. It is further not disputed that there was no allegation of misrepresentation of fraud against the petitioners in getting the incentive increment. 8 It is settled law that once benefit granted to a person even if wrongly, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively and in any case, recovery cannot be effected in the absence of allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. In view of the settled position, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9 Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed, but no order as to costs.