Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J.: The appellants in the writ appeal were the respondents W.P.No.14109 of 1988. The respondents herein were the petitioners in that writ petition are referring to the parties as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the writ petition. 2. The petitioners were in service in the transferred territories of Kanyakumari district they had entered service in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State, long prior to 31.10.1986 and they were in service on that date. Their claim is that they are entitled to the benefits the Private Secondary School Scheme which is briefly referred to as P.S.S.Scheme. They came to this Court by way of W.P.No.14109 putting forth the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction nature of a Writ, directing the respondents to sanction the salary with increment benefits to the petitioners after completion of their respective 58th year, respective 60th year and also upto the 31st May of the respective School year, petitioners are legally entitled, to pass such further or other suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and render justice. With reference to the petitioners continuing in service till they completed 60 years there was, and there is no controversy. Equally so on the aspect that the petitioners entitled to pension on the basis of service upto the age of 58 years, there is no dispute. learned single Judge accorded reliefs to the petitioners as follows: "However, the learned Government Advocate was fair enough to admit communication dated 30.5.1988 was passed pursuant to the orders of this Court. am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayer for in this writ Once a direction is given by the concerned authority that the petitioners shall be in service till they completed 60 years of age, they will be automatically entitled and increments till they retire from service. The question whether the petitioners are to pension on the basis of their service upto the age of 60 years does not arise because petitioners agree that they arc entitled to pension on the basis of their service upto of 58 years under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act. The question whether the petitioners are to pension on the basis of their service upto the age of 60 years does not arise because petitioners agree that they arc entitled to pension on the basis of their service upto of 58 years under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act. The reason that there is no provision for pension and gratuity in P.S.S.Scheme. Similar position considered in the case of John Rose and I have already referred to paragraph G.O.Ms.No.1069, dated 14.7.1987. It is therefore clear that for pension purposes, should be taken upto the age of 58 and the remaining period of service should be treated re-employment basis. The petitioners herein are in a similar position and they will be to similar benefits." This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge. 3. Mr.A.Fathimanathan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioners could not claim emoluments which would exceed the pay at the time of retirement, though made up of pension admissible and the pay during employment. On this basis the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would say that the petitioners would not be entitled to increments during the period re-employment. The learned Government Advocate places reliance on Rule 9, proviso the Tamil Nadu Non-Government Teacher’s Pension Rules, 1958. The learned Government Advocate fairly concedes that this rule was not pressed into service before the learned Judge. 4. There is a ruling already given in the case of teachers similarly placed as the petitioners, in G.O.Ms.No.1069, Education Department, dated 14.7.1987, where it has been opined that teachers like the petitioners who are to continue on re-employment basis not be entitled to pension on the basis of their service upto the age of 60 years, indicating that the other benefits which they enjoyed under the P.S.S Scheme shall deprived to them. The implication of G.O.Ms.No.1069, Education Department, 14.7.1987 have been taken note of by the learned single Judge when he granted the of the petitioners without in any way mutating it. We must record that the grievance respondents, as expressed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for them writ appeal, is only with reference to the accord of increment to the petitioners during period beyond the age of 58 years. In G.O.Ms.No.1069 dated 14.7.1987 there is categoric averment that no recovery or adjustment shall be made. We must record that the grievance respondents, as expressed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for them writ appeal, is only with reference to the accord of increment to the petitioners during period beyond the age of 58 years. In G.O.Ms.No.1069 dated 14.7.1987 there is categoric averment that no recovery or adjustment shall be made. We do not think should discriminate the petitioners from the case dealt with in G.O.Ms.No.1069, 14.7.1987. Even ,the argument that the import of the G.O. must be confined to the teacher John Rose, in our view, was rightly repelled by the learned single Judge agree with his opinion that the instructions contained in the said order would apply to teachers who are similarly placed. In the said circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.