JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Letter (Ms) No.129, School Education [Pa.Ka.5(2)] 2013-1 dated 17.07.2013 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.88/2014 dated 18.12.2014 and to quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.) 1. The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the order impugned correcting the grant of incentive increment for acquiring higher educational qualification in letter dated 17.07.2013. 2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant in the School Education on 01.07.2004. Her services were regularised in the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) with effect from 01.06.2006. The petitioner acquired the qualification of M.Sc., in the year 1999 and further completed M.Phil. course, in the year 2007. The petitioner was sanctioned with incentive increment for M.Sc., Degree on the date of appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant as per the Government Orders in force. 3. The petitioner, admittedly, discontinued the M.Ed., Degree Course and studied M.Phil and accordingly submitted an application for grant of second incentive increment. The second incentive increment for M.Ed., Course was granted by the Government only through G.O.(1D) No.18, School Education Department, dated 18.01.2013. The petitioner states that since the petitioner is eligible for second incentive increment for completion of M.Phil Course, it was sanctioned from the date of passing of the M.Phil., Course and the arrears were paid. Thus, there is no infirmity in granting the incentive increment from the date of passing of the M.Phil Course. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 was issued in order to add qualification of M.Phil degree in the place of M.Ed and therefore, it is construed as benefit granted even prior to passing of G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 and thus, the incentive increment sanctioned to the petitioner from the date of possessing the degree is valid and is in consonance with the Government Order passed. Thus, the consequential orders passed by the respondents, which are all impugned in this writ petition, are liable to be set aside. 5. Thus, the consequential orders passed by the respondents, which are all impugned in this writ petition, are liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that M.Phil degree was incorporated for the first time in G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 and prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013, M.Phil qualification was not an eligible qualification for grant of incentive increment. Thus, the Government took policy decision to grant incentive increment only from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013 and therefore, the Headmaster, at the instance of the petitioner, had wrongly sanctioned the incentive increment from the date of passing of M.Phil degree, which is otherwise not contemplated in the Government order. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that incentive increment is granted to the Teachers for the purpose of encouraging them to acquire more educational qualification, which would be beneficial to the students as additional qualification would be helpful for imparting better education. In order to encourage the Teachers, the Government implemented the scheme of incentive increment by way of concession. The Teachers are eligible to get two incentive increments in their entire service as per the scheme of incentive increment. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner possesses the qualification of M.Phil degree and on such acquisition, he made a representation to the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, who had wrongly sanctioned incentive increment from the date of passing of degree by misinterpreting the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013. The incentive increment was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner from 23.09.2006 from the date of passing of the degree based on the representation submitted by the petitioner for sanction of incentive increment. 8. All such Government Orders issued granting incentive increments are to be implemented from the date of passing of the order prospectively. If at all, the Government intended to extend the benefit with retrospective effect, the date of implementation must be specifically stated in the Government Order. In the absence of any such mentioning in the Government Orders, the Government Orders granting such financial benefits have to be implemented prospectively. If at all, the Government intended to extend the benefit with retrospective effect, the date of implementation must be specifically stated in the Government Order. In the absence of any such mentioning in the Government Orders, the Government Orders granting such financial benefits have to be implemented prospectively. In the present case, at the request of the petitioner, the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Alukkuli, Erode District sanctioned incentive increment in favour of the petitioner from the date of passing of the M.Phil degree, which was found to be erroneous by the Audit Personnel. 9. The incentive increment was sanctioned based on the representation made by the petitioner specifically to sanction incentive increment from the date of passing of M.Phil degree. The Headmaster erroneously interpreted the Government Order and sanctioned the same. Subsequently, audit objection was raised by the Regional Accounts Officer, Coimbatore, on the ground that incentive increment is to be granted prospectively from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.18, School Education, dated 18.01.2013. 10. When the original Government Order issued in G.O.(1D) No.18, School Education Department, dated 18.01.2013, stipulates that the benefit of incentive increment is to be granted prospectively, the clarification was issued in Government Letter No.129 only to clarify the doubts aroused in the mind of the Subordinate Authorities and therefore, such Government Letters cannot be construed as in violation of the Government order issued in G.O.(1D) No.18, School Education Department, dated 18.01.2013. Thus the Government Letter issued in Letter No.129, dated 17.07.2013 is not running counter to the parent Government Order issued in G.O.(1D) No.18, School Education Department, dated 18.01.2013. In fact, the Government Letter is in consonance with the Government Order to grant the benefit of incentive increment prospectively from the date of issuance of the Government Order. 11. In the present case, it is admitted that the incentive increment for possessing M.Phil Course was granted based on G.O.(1D) No.18, School Education Department, dated 18.01.2013. However, the error was committed by the Authroities by granting retrospective monetary benefits from the date of passing of the Course, which is not contemplated in the Government Order and therefore, the petitioner has granted excess amount of incentive increment for which he is not eligible as per the Government Order. 12. Any public money spent must be audited properly. However, the error was committed by the Authroities by granting retrospective monetary benefits from the date of passing of the Course, which is not contemplated in the Government Order and therefore, the petitioner has granted excess amount of incentive increment for which he is not eligible as per the Government Order. 12. Any public money spent must be audited properly. In the event of tracing out any such error or erroneous grant of excess money, then the Authorities Competent are empowered to recover the same. No Public Servant must be allowed to receive salary or increment or otherwise. Over and above the eligibility and such grant of public money would result in unjust gain, which is impermissible under law. Only on exemptional circumstances in the event of any extreme hardship, the Courts are directing the Authorities not to recover the excess amount. However the principles cannot be applied in all the cases where the employees are working in a cadre where their salary is decent and therefore, the exemption from recovery cannot be granted in all cases. 13. In the present case, the Headmaster of the School or the Authority Competent erroneously interpreted the Government Order and extended the benefit of incentive increment from the date of passing of the Degree instead of from the date of Government Order issued. Thus such errors cannot result in unjust gain to the Government employees and therefore, the correction made through the impugned order cannot be construed as infirm. Accordingly, the petitioner is liable to repay the excess amount based on the order passed by the Competent Authorities. 14. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.