JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner was a Lecturer in a recognised and aided institution, known as Adarsh Inter College, Achalda, District Auraiya (Institution), which is governed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 06th March, 1999 passed by the first respondent, the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah whereby the claim of the petitioner for fixation of his pay-scale in terms of the Government Order dated 06th November, 1989 has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the institution on 15th July, 1964. He was promoted on the post of Lecturer on 06th September, 1996. It is stated that prior to his promotion on the post of Lecturer, when the petitioner was in the L.T. Grade, he was getting Trained Graduate Selection Grade in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-60-2540-EB-75-2765, whereas at the material time the pay-scale of Lecturer was Rs. 1600-50-2300-EB-60-2660. From the aforesaid two pay-scales it is clear that the petitioner was getting a higher scale of pay in the L.T. Grade as he was granted selection grade of the Trained Graduate. 3. The petitioner has placed reliance on a Government Order dated 06th November, 1989, wherein it is provided that on promotion an incumbent would get one increment in the time-scale of the initial salary in the next higher grade. A copy of the said Government Order is placed on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition. Subsequently, the State Government issued another Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995, wherein it is provided that an L.T. Grade teacher getting the selection grade on being promoted on the post of Lecturer would get higher pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2765 on personal basis. The District Inspector of Schools in the light of the aforesaid Government orders granted one increment on the new time-scale next above his pay. Consequently, it is stated that the petitioner’s salary was fixed at Rs. 2615/-. A copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11th September, 1996 has been brought on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. Consequently, it is stated that the petitioner’s salary was fixed at Rs. 2615/-. A copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11th September, 1996 has been brought on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. The dispute arose in the year 1998 when the State Government in compliance with the recommendations of the Pay Committee, U.P. (1998) revised the pay-scales of the teachers of the educational institutions, State Universities and Agriculture Universities since 01st January, 1996. In accordance with the said order, the petitioner was entitled for the revision of his pay-scale w.e.f. 01st January, 1996. However, the District Inspector of Schools while implementing the recommendations of the Pay Commission in terms of the Government Order dated 10th July, 1998 revised the pay-scale of the petitioner but cancelled one increment which was granted to him earlier vide order of his predecessor dated 11th September, 1996. Aggrieved by his pay fixation, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 25th January, 1999. The said representation has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools by a cryptic order that in view of the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 the petitioner’s pay fixation has been made, therefore, it does not require any amendment. A copy of the said order dated 06th March, 1999 is on the record as annexure-7 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. While entertaining this writ petition, this Court granted an interim order on 17th June, 1999 staying the operation of the impugned order. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner’s pay-scale was fixed in pursuance of the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 and his pay was fixed by giving one extra increment in the next higher pay-scale. It has also been stated that the earlier order passed by the predecessor of the District Inspector of Schools granting one increment was erroneous. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Part-II to IV, as the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 does not provide the benefit of Rule 22-B, which is evident from the said Government Order itself. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Part-II to IV, as the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 does not provide the benefit of Rule 22-B, which is evident from the said Government Order itself. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that although it is true that when the petitioner was granted promotion in the Lecturer grade, he was in the selection grade of the Assistant Teacher, therefore, salary of the Assistant Teacher and the Lecturer was same. Thus, in view of the said fact, he was not entitled to benefit of Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Part II to IV. 7. This Court vide its order dated 16th July, 2014 had directed the learned Standing Counsel to file a supplementary counter-affidavit clarifying the stand of the State Government in respect of Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Part-II to IV. 8. In response to the said direction, the District Inspector of Schools has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit, wherein a stand has been taken that Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook is not applicable in the case of the teachers and the pay fixation has been rightly made. 9. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder-affidavit. He has brought on the record a clarificatory Government Order dated 16th February, 1990 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh addressed to the Director of Education, U.P., Education (Artha-2), Allahabad in respect of the queries sought by the Directorate of Education regarding pay fixation of the Assistant Teachers and Lecturers working in the higher secondary schools. One of the queries was whether benefit of Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook, Vol.II, Part II to IV, is admissible to the teachers or not. In response to the said query, the Joint Secretary of the State Government in the said Government Order has clarified that although Rule 22-B is not applicable but the benefit of the Government Order dated 06th November, 1989 is admissible to the teachers. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for benefit of Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook as provided in the Government Order of the year 1989. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for benefit of Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook as provided in the Government Order of the year 1989. He further submits that the petitioner at the time of his promotion on the post of Lecturer was already in the selection grade of the Assistant Teacher and in the year 1989 when he was promoted, he was in the same pay-scale, therefore, in view of the Government Order of 06th November, 1989 the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 11th September, 1996 had rightly sanctioned one increment. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity. It is further urged that the clarification issued by the State Government, which has been brought on record as annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit, clearly indicates that the increment, which was granted by the District Inspector of Schools in the year 1996 in the light of the Government Order dated 06th November, 1989, has been wrongly cancelled. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has taken the Court to various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and has tried to justify the stand taken by the District Inspector of Schools in the counter-affidavit. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 13. Concededly, the petitioner was receiving the selection grade when he was an Assistant Teacher. At the material time he was in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-60-2540-EB-75-2765, which is the same pay-scale of the Lecturer. The Government Order dated 06th November, 1989 has been issued in respect of the aided Higher Secondary and Intermediate Colleges as well as Primary Schools, Junior High Schools run by the Board of Basic Education. The said Government Order clearly provides that if a teacher has been promoted on the next higher post on substantive, temporary or officiating basis and he is performing the duties of the higher post, in that event he will be granted one increment in the pay-scale of the higher post. The said Government Order clearly provides that if a teacher has been promoted on the next higher post on substantive, temporary or officiating basis and he is performing the duties of the higher post, in that event he will be granted one increment in the pay-scale of the higher post. The relevant part of the Government Order reads as under: ^^eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd jkT;iky egksn; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa rFkk csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk lapkfyr izkbejh Ldwy@twfu;j gkbZ Ldwyksa rFkk lgk;rk izkIr twfu;j gkbZ Ldwyksa ds leLr iw.kZdkfyd rFkk 'kklu }kjk Lohd`r inksa ij fof/kor fu;qfDr f'k{kdksa dks tks ekSfyd vLFkk;h ;k LFkkukiUu :i esa dksbZ in /kkj.k dj jgs gkssa fdlh ,sls vU; inksa ij ftlds drZO; vkSj mRrjnkf;Ro muds }kjk /k`r inksa ls lEcfU/kr drZO; vkSj mRrjnkf;Ro muds }kjk vis{kk egRoiw.kZ gksa ekSfyd vLFkk;h ;k LFkkukiUu fdlh Hkh :i esa inksUur ;k fu;qDr fd;s tk;sa ogka mPprj in ds le;eku esa mudk izkjfEHkd osru ml osru ds vxys izdze ij fuf'pr fd;k tk;sxk tks fuEu in ds lEcU/k esa mlds osru ds ml izdze ij ftl ij ,slk osru izksn~Hkwr gqvk gks] dks ,d osruo`f) nsdj lS)kfUrd :i ls c<+kdj fudkyk x;k gks] ijUrq ;g Hkh fd ;fn dksbZ f'k{kd fdlh mPprj in ij viuh inksUufr ;k fu;qfDr ds Bhd iwoZ fuEu in ds le;eku esa vf/kdre osru vkgfjr dj jgk gks] rks mPprj in ds le;eku esa mldk izkjfEHkd osru ml osru ds vxys izdze ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;sxk tks fuEu in ds le;eku esa vfUre osru o`f) ds cjkcj dh èkujkf'k nsdj lS)kfUrd :i ls c<+kdj fudkyk x;k gksA^^ 14. In compliance with the said Government Order, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 11th September, 1996 had rightly fixed the petitioner’s pay-scale by giving one additional increment. By the impugned order the District Inspector of Schools cancelled the said increment in reference to the subsequent Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995. A perusal of the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 it is evident that the Government Order dated 06th November, 1989 has not been modified or amended. By the said Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 the earlier Government Order dated 04th October, 1989 has been amended. 15. A perusal of the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 it is evident that the Government Order dated 06th November, 1989 has not been modified or amended. By the said Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995 the earlier Government Order dated 04th October, 1989 has been amended. 15. The State Government in its clarificatory Government Order dated 16th February, 1990, which has been issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of U.P., has mentioned that if a teacher is allowed to officiate on higher post and the salary of his post and the higher post are same, then in that case next increment shall be given to him in the same pay-scale after a year. It is also clarified in the Government order that although Rule 22-B of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Part II to IV, is not applicable, yet the benefit of Rule 22-B has been extended by the Government order dated 06th November, 1989. The clarification of the State Government reads as under: ^^10- foRrh; gLriqfLrdk [k.M&2 ls 4 ds fu;e 22ch0 dk ykHk vuqeU; ugha gS fdUrq bldk ykHk jktkKk la[;k 132@15&8&89@ 3007@89] fnukad 6&11&89 }kjk mPprj nkf;Ro ds in ij inksUufr dh n’kk esa vuqeU; gksxkA^^ 16. The aforesaid clarification makes it abundantly clear that the Government Order dated 06th November, 1989 is applicable in the case of the petitioner and in compliance thereof the petitioner was given an increment. The said increment, therefore, cannot be withdrawn by the District Inspector of Schools. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh Kanwar, (2014) 13 SCC 622 , has held that the increment is an incidence of employment. The petitioner has been awarded the said increment in view of the fact that when he was promoted, he was already in the selection grade of the L.T. Grade, which was equal to the salary of the Lecturer, therefore, the said increment was granted to him in terms of the Government order dated 06th November, 1989. From the perusal of the impugned order it is also evident that the District Inspector of Schools has not taken into consideration the said Government Order of 1989 and has only confined his consideration in terms of the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995. 17. From the perusal of the impugned order it is also evident that the District Inspector of Schools has not taken into consideration the said Government Order of 1989 and has only confined his consideration in terms of the Government Order dated 02nd February, 1995. 17. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, I find that the impugned order dated 06th March, 1999 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioner is entitled for one increment, which was sanctioned to him by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 11th September, 1996. The said order dated 11th September, 1996 is restored. The petitioner is entitled for the consequential benefits. The petitioner is also entitled for the amount which has been recovered from him in compliance of the impugned order. The said amount shall be paid to him within four months from the date of communication of this order. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 19. No order as to costs. ——————