THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12833 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7774 of 1997 dated 27.10.1999 and in Review M.A.No.263 of 2000 dated 7.3.2000. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: All the petitioners, who filed O.A., were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers in A.P.Handicapped Welfare Subordinate Service in various schools for teaching Visually Handicapped. In 1988 persons working in non-residential ordinary special schools were sanctioned advance increments for possessing special qualification i.e., Diploma in Teaching the Blind. Whereas in the case of the petitioners and similarly placed persons though they were doing similar work and even more work, they were not sanctioned those advance increments. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent in the O.A., considering the case of the present writ petitioners directed that whatever benefits that were given to other Teachers have to be given to the petitioners who were doing similar work. Consequently, the Principal, Residential School for Visually Handicapped, Hindupur, after verification of scale of pay of Teachers working in Government School for Blind, Darushifa, Hyderabad, extended the same benefit of incentive increments to the applicants. During the year 1995, the Audit Party objected with regard to the sanction of advance increments for possessing Diploma in Teaching Visually Handicapped. Thereafter, advance increments granted to the petitioners were stopped and it was proposed to recover the amounts already paid. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed O.A.No.7774 of 1997 and the Tribunal by order, dated 27.10.1999 dismissed the same holding that the petitioners are not entitled for two advance increments as claimed by them. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed Review M.A.No.263 of 2000 and the Tribunal by order dated 7.3.2000 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the teachers working in Government Departments, who were doing similar work and having similar qualifications i.e., teaching Visually Handicapped etc., have been sanctioned two advance increments for possessing the Diploma in Teaching Visually Handicapped, whereas the petitioners working in Handicapped Department are not being paid such increments, as such, there was nothing illegal in the petitioners being granted such advance increments and the recovery may not be made. The learned Government Pleader contends that, as revealed from the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, the minimum required qualification for the Teachers appointed in Disabled and Handicapped Departments is Diploma in teaching the Visually Handicapped. It is also further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the scales of pay in both the departments are different. In Education Department the scale of pay is Rs.1280 as per 1986 PRC and Rs.2525 as per 1993 PRC, whereas in Disabled Welfare Department, the scale of pay is Rs.1330 as per 1986 PRC and Rs.2600/- as per 1993 PRC. Thus, they are getting higher salary and may be for that reason they were required to possess better qualification i.e., minimum qualification for holding the post. This contention of the learned Government Pleader is true as seen from the comparative statement of scales and as seen from the relevant Rules. Thus, the minimum qualification for the teachers working in Disabled Welfare Departments, where the petitioners are working, is Diploma in Teaching the Visually Handicapped, which is not a requirement for the teachers working in Education Department. The Diploma in Teaching the Visually Handicapped is a prerequisite qualification for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Disabled Welfare Department when compared with the scales of Education Department. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of only the minimum qualification that was required in the Rules. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled for the advance increments as claimed by them. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the advance increments were paid by mistake by the Departmental officer, there is no justification in recovering the entire amount paid. There was suspension during the pendency of the writ petition. Hence, amounts paid till the date of disposal of the impugned O.A., i.e., March 2000 shall not be recovered and the amounts paid thereafter shall be recovered/adjusted. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30.7.2009 kpr