Pay refixation cancelling ineligible incentive increments was upheld, but recovery from the retired employee was set aside.

The respondent, a retired Primary School Headmaster, had been granted two incentive increments for acquiring B.Com. and B.Ed. qualifications.

He subsequently obtained an M.A. degree through the Open University System, without completing a B.A. degree, and was granted an additional incentive increment for the M.A. qualification.

The authorities later found that the M.A. degree did not satisfy the applicable Government Scheme governing incentive increments and passed an order cancelling that increment and re-fixing his pay.

The respondent challenged the action in W.P. No.26486 of 2025. The Single Judge’s order dated 22.07.2025 was challenged by the educational authorities in the present writ appeal.

1. Whether the authorities were entitled to cancel the incentive increment granted to the respondent for acquiring the M.A. degree through the Open University System and consequently re-fix his pay under the applicable Government Scheme.

2. Whether recovery of the excess salary paid to the respondent could be made, considering that he had already retired from service.

The Court applied the Government Scheme governing the grant of incentive increments, under which only eligible and valid educational qualifications obtained in the prescribed manner can confer entitlement to such increments.

It held that an Open University degree obtained without undergoing the requisite regular educational pattern was not valid for the purpose of claiming the incentive increment in the circumstances of the case.

The Court further applied the principle that an administrative authority may correct an erroneous grant and re-fix pay in accordance with the governing rules; however, recovery of excess payment may be refused where it would cause undue hardship to a retired employee.

The Court found that the respondent’s M.A. degree had been obtained through the Open University System without completing the B.A. course and therefore did not qualify under the Government Scheme.

It also noted that the respondent had already received an incentive increment for his B.Ed. qualification.

Accordingly, the authorities were justified in cancelling the increment mistakenly granted for the M.A. degree and in re-fixing the respondent’s pay.

However, since the respondent was a retired employee, recovery of the excess salary would cause hardship.

The Court therefore distinguished between lawful correction of the pay fixation and recovery of amounts already paid.

The Court confirmed the re-fixation of the respondent’s pay after cancellation of the incentive increment granted for the M.A. degree.

Nevertheless, it set aside recovery of the excess salary paid.

Any excess amount withheld by the Department was directed to be paid to the respondent within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.