Incentive increments granted under the prevailing Government Order cannot later be withdrawn or recovered.

The petitioners, school teachers, had been granted incentive increments for B.Ed. qualifications in 2010 or 2014 under G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10 January 1969.

In proceedings dated 23 October 2019, the Block Educational Officer sought to recover those increments and refix the petitioners’ pay without them.

The petitioners challenged those proceedings under Article 226, relying on a Full Bench decision concerning the effect of G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 10 March 2020, and its subsequent cancellation by G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 26 October 2023.

The respondents relied on a later coordinate Bench decision, arguing that the Full Bench protected recovery only in limited circumstances and that a fresh application under G.O.Ms.No.95 was required.

Whether the respondents could recover incentive increments granted to the petitioners years earlier under G.O.Ms.No.42, relying on subsequent Government Orders.

Whether the petitioners were required to apply afresh under G.O.Ms.No.95 for continuation of incentive increments already sanctioned and paid.

The Court considered G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10 January 1969, under which the incentive increments had been granted; G.O.Ms.No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10 March 2020; and G.O.Ms.No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV) Department, dated 26 October 2023, which cancelled G.O.Ms.No.37 and provided the later policy framework.

Applying the Full Bench decision as described in the judgment, the Court treated increments granted before G.O.Ms.No.37 as protected from recovery, and distinguished those grants from applications pending on 10 March 2020, which were to be dealt with under the policy in G.O.Ms.No.95.

The Court further held that increments sanctioned under the Government Order in force at the relevant time could not be revisited on the basis of subsequent Government Orders.

The petitioners’ increments had been sanctioned and paid in 2010 and 2014, before G.O.Ms.No.37 was issued.

The Court held that the Full Bench’s directions concerning applications pending on 10 March 2020 did not require these petitioners—whose increments had already been granted—to make fresh applications under G.O.Ms.No.95.

Nor could later Government Orders justify recovery or refixation of pay by excluding those increments.

The respondents’ reliance on the coordinate Bench decision did not alter that conclusion in these cases.

It held that the respondents could neither recover the incentive increments already granted nor require fresh applications under G.O.Ms.No.95 for those grants.

The impugned proceedings dated 23 October 2019 were set aside, the writ petitions were allowed, and there was no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.