Judgment :- P.K.Misra, J. (Common Judgment) W.P.No.37838 of 2003 relates to O.A.No.681/2002 and W.P.No.37839 of 2003 relates to O.A.No.887/2002. Both the Original Applications have been disposed of by common order dated 22.3.2002 and therefore, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together and shall be governed by the present common judgment. 2.The present Writ Petitions are filed by the State Government and other subordinate officers challenging the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.681/2002 and 887/2002. The O.A.No.681/2001 had been filed by the respondents 1 to 5 in W.P.No.37838/2003 and O.A.No.887/2001 had been filed by respondent No.1 in W.P.No.37839/2003 seeking for a direction to the State Government and others (present petitioners) to grant minimum pension to those applicants in the light of G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93. The present respondents were serving as Village Munsifs prior to 14.11.80 and such posts were abolished by one ordinance issued by the State Government. Subsequently, the ordinance was repealed and Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Act, 1981 was passed. The validity of such Act was challenged and on the basis of the consent given by the State Government before the Supreme Court, the Government appointed a State Level Screening Committee to induct such Ex-part time Village Officers as Village Administrative Officers. Initially, only those Village Part-time Officers who had minimum educational qualification of S.S.L.C. as on 20.2.82 were appointed as Village Administrative Officers. Subsequently, however, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1287 dated 6.7.88 whereunder the Government passed an order to the effect that the Ex-Village Officers who have passed S.S.L.C., subsequent to 20.2.82 would also be eligible for appointment under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules to fill up the vacancies in the cadre of Village Administrative Officers. It is not disputed that the present respondents 1 to 5 passed S.S.L.C. examination after 20.2.82 and were subsequently appointed as Village Administrative Officers pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.1287 dated 6.7.88. It is also not disputed that all such respondents have retired on completion of 60 years in the year 1996, 1997 and respondent No.5 had retired on 30.4.98. In the meantime, the Government had issued G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93 relating to grant of pension to Ex-Village Officers who had lost their jobs on 14.11.80 and subsequently appointed as Village Administrative Officers. It is also not disputed that all such respondents have retired on completion of 60 years in the year 1996, 1997 and respondent No.5 had retired on 30.4.98. In the meantime, the Government had issued G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93 relating to grant of pension to Ex-Village Officers who had lost their jobs on 14.11.80 and subsequently appointed as Village Administrative Officers. Since the question raised in the present Writ Petitions relate to the right of the respondents to receive the pension under aforesaid Government order, the English translation of the order is extracted hereunder: "The Tamilnadu Village Administrative Officers Association had insisted the Government to sanction pension to the Village Administrative Officers, who lost their job due to the ordinance passed during the past 14.11.1980, and later re-appointed as Village Administrative Officers on the basis of the Order issued by the Government as per the Order of the Supreme Court and are due for retirement without completing 10 years of service. 2.The said request of the Association had been analysed in detail by the Government. The Government decided to relax the pension rules in order to sanction minimum pension to those persons, who were formerly employed as Village Administrative Officers, lost their job in the past 14.11.1980 but again re-appointed as Village Administrative Officers on the basis of eligibility and retired after serving for a period of less than 10 years. 3.Accordingly, it is ordered that, in respect of Village Administrative Officers who lost their job in the past 14.11.1980, but again re-appointed as Village Administrative Officers on eligibility basis and retired without completing 10 years of service, the qualifying period of service for the sanction of pension alone, may be calculated from 14.11.1980 the date they lost their job, till the date of retirement, instead of the date on which they were reappointed as Village Administrative Officer and a minimum pension may be sanctioned. 4.This order is issued with the consent of the Revenue Department." Subsequently, on the basis of a query made by the Deputy Accountant General, Chennai, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.875 dated 29.10.98 issued a clarification to the effect that the benefit of G.O.(Per.)No.756 dated 17.8.93 is applicable only to the Village Administrative Officers who were having minimum general educational qualification on 14.11.80 and were appointed through the Screening Committee. It is further indicated that the persons appointed under 10(a)(i) are eligible for pension only after completion of 10 years qualifying service from the date of appointment as Village Administrative Officers. It is further indicated that the Village Administrative Officers who were appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.1287, dated 6.7.88 are eligible to get minimum pension only after completion of 10 years of qualifying service from the date of appointment as Village Administrative Officers. On the basis of the aforesaid qualification, the representations made by the various respondents for payment of their pension had been rejected. At this stage, the present respondents filed the O.A.Nos.681 and 887 of 2002. Both the Original Applications were disposed of by a common order dated 22.3.2002. The Tribunal allowed the applications of the present respondents on a finding that the clarification issued in 1998 was not applicable to the applicants who had retired prior to the issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.875 dated 29.10.98 and all such persons who were retired were eligible to receive the pension as per the G.O.(Per)No.756 issued in the year 1993. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the benefit of G.O.(Per)No.756 dated 17.8.93 is available to those Village Administrative Officers who had the required educational qualification of S.S.L.C. on 20.2.82 and who had been selected through the State Level Screening Committee. But, such order is not applicable to those who acquired the qualification of S.S.L.C. after 20.2.82 and were subsequently appointed through the orders passed by the concerned District Collectors. The G.O.(Per)No.756 dated 17.8.93 has already been extracted above. In the aforesaid G.O., reference is made to G.O.No.1195 dated 5.7.82, G.O.No.1287 dated 6.7.88 and the request putforth by the Village Administrative Officers Association. The initial recruitment to the post of Village Administrative Officers had been made as per the G.O.No.1195 dated 5.7.82 where only those persons who had passed S.S.L.C. prior to 20.2.82 were considered eligible for being appointed as Village Administrative Officers. Subsequently, as per the G.O.No.1287 dated 6.7.88, persons who had passed S.S.L.C. after 20.2.82 were also considered as eligible. In G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93 it is not indicated anywhere that the benefit of relaxation relating to completion of 10 years of service was confined to those who had acquired eligibility prior to 20.2.82 nor is it indicated any where that such benefits will be applicable only to persons who were selected through the State Level Screening Committee. In G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93 it is not indicated anywhere that the benefit of relaxation relating to completion of 10 years of service was confined to those who had acquired eligibility prior to 20.2.82 nor is it indicated any where that such benefits will be applicable only to persons who were selected through the State Level Screening Committee. The main consideration was that the Ex-village officers had lost their part time job on the basis of the Ordinance/Act passed by the State Government and subsequently, they were appointed as Village Administrative Officers and there was less possibility of completion of 10 years qualifying service as Village Administrative Officers. Therefore, the Government thought it fit to relax the minimum requirement of completion of 10 years service as qualifying period of service for sanction of pension alone. No distinction had been made in such order dated 17.8.93 that only who were eligible on the date of Ordinance or even on 20.2.82 were to be considered. Similarly, no distinction had been made depending on the manner of selection. Initially, the manner of selection was through the State Level Screening Committee whereas, subsequently, the manner of selection was through the District Collector. Thus, G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93 was equally applicable to those Ex-Village officers, who passed S.S.L.C.after 20.2.82 and were subsequently appointed as per G.O.No.1287 dated 6.7.88. It is also to be noted that in G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93 there is a specific reference to G.O.No.1287 dated 6.7.88 on the basis of which the present respondents have been appointed as Village Administrative Officers. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal that such persons were entitled to the benefit of G.O.(Per).No.756 dated 17.8.93 cannot be criticized as illegal or erroneous in any manner. 4.It is no doubt true that subsequently G.O.No.875 dated 29.10.98 has been issued issuing certain clarifications. However, the Tribunal has rightly observed that such order/clarification is not retrospective in its operation and does not have the effect of taking away the vested right of the Village Administrative Officers who had retired prior to 29.10.98. 5.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the present Writ Petitions which are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.45947 and 45948 of 2004 are also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.