Judgment 1. The application submitted by the petitioner for payment of incentive increment was earlier rejected by the second respondent by proceedings dated 03.12.2012. The petitioner thereafter submitted another application on the basis of the endorsement made by the Management in the Service Register. 2. The petitioner now seeks a direction to consider her claim for incentive increment. 3. There is no question of issuing a mandamus, in view of the fact that the second respondent has already rejected the claim made by the petitioner. The said order remain unchallenged as on today. 4. Since the second respondent has already considered the issue and rejected the application, writ petition is dismissed. However, this order would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order dated 03.12.2012, if she is so advised. No costs.