Judgment :- (These writ appeals are preferred against the common order dated 19.6.2003 in W.P.Nos.45840 of 2002 and 3626 of 2003.) Common Judgment: (V. Ramasubramanian, J.) The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, through its Managing Director and General Manager, has filed the above writ appeals against the common order of the learned Judge dated 19.6.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.45840 of 2002 and 3626 of 2003 by which the orders passed by the appellants canceling the Selection Grade conferred upon the respondents herein and re-fixing their pay and ordering recovery, were set aside. 2. The respondents in the writ appeals were originally appointed as Labourers in the Chennai Corporation and were later absorbed into the services of the Appellant-Board, immediately after its formation. After absorption, the respondents were promoted as 'Meter Readers' in the appellant-Board in the year 1982. 3. On a representation of the 'Demand Servers' and 'Meter Readers' working in the appellant-Board, the Board passed a resolution dated 19.5.1986, communicated in the proceedings of the Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 31.7.1986, merging the posts of 'Demand Servers' and 'Meter Readers' and re-designating them as 'Revenue Collectors'. In accordance with the said resolution of the Board, the respondents were re-designated as 'Revenue Collectors' and their scale of pay was also changed from Rs.555-15-615-20-795-25-970 to Rs.610-20-730-25-955-30-1075. 4. The appellant-Board resolved in the year 1992 to grant Selection Grade and Special Grade to its employees upon completion of ten years and twenty years of service respectively, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of Tamilnadu. By the proceedings of the Board, in B.P.MISC.No.19/92, dated 23.10.1992, the guidelines were issued by the appellant-Board for advancement to Selection Grade and Special Grade. 5. In accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the respondents herein were granted Selection Grade with effect from 1.8.1992. This was done obviously on the basis that the respondents had completed ten years of service in the category of 'Revenue Collectors', by counting the services rendered by them as 'Meter Readers' from 1982 to 1986. 6. After several years of the grant of Selection Grade to the respondents, the General Manager of the appellant-Board issued a communication dated 2.12.1997 to the effect that the posts of 'Demand Servers'/'Meter Readers' and 'Revenue Collectors' are not equivalent and that the grant of Selection Grade by counting the services rendered by the respondents in the category of 'Demand Servers'/'Meter Readers' was erroneous. In pursuance of the said communication, individual notices were issued by separate memorandum dated 27.6.2002, asking the individuals to show cause as to why the Selection Grade already granted to them should not be cancelled and the excess amount paid, recovered. 7. After receiving the replies of the individuals concerned, the General Manager of the appellant-Board passed orders dated 2.9.2002 canceling the Selection Grade granted already. By a separate consequential order dated 24.12.2002, the pay of the respondents were re-fixed and the excess arising out of such re-fixation directed to be recovered. 8. It is against the said orders of cancellation of Selection Grade, re-fixation of pay and recovery that the respondents filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.45840 of 2002 and 3626 of 2003. By a common order dated 19.6.2003, the writ petitions were allowed as prayed for and the appellant-Board has preferred the above appeals against the said order. 9. Mr.B.Shanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Board contended that the posts of 'Demand Servers' and 'Meter Readers' were not equivalent to the post of 'Revenue Collectors' and that the duties and responsibilities of 'Revenue Collectors' are much higher in nature than that of the 'Demand Servers' and 'Meter Readers'. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the scale of pay of the post of 'Revenue Collector' was also different from the scale of pay of the post of 'Demand Servers' and 'Meter Readers' and that therefore, the period of ten years for the grant of Selection Grade in the post of 'Revenue Collector' should be reckoned only from 31.7.1986, the date on which the respondents became 'Revenue Collectors'. If so reckoned, the respondents would become eligible for the grant of Selection Grade only in July 1996 and hence the earlier orders granting them Selection Grade from 1992, were erroneous and liable to be cancelled. 10. But the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant does not appeal to us for the following reasons:- a) By a resolution of the appellant-Board dated 19.5.1986, communicated in the proceedings of the Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 31.7.1986, the posts of 'Demand Servers' and 'Meter Readers' were merged and all persons holding these posts were re-designated as 'Revenue Collectors'. The relevant portion of the communication dated 31.7.1986 reads as follows:- "Based on the above resolution of the Board, the following orders are issued:- 1. The relevant portion of the communication dated 31.7.1986 reads as follows:- "Based on the above resolution of the Board, the following orders are issued:- 1. The post of 'Demand Servers' and 'Meter Readers' are merged and designated as 'Revenue Collectors' and attached to the respective Area Offices with Divisions as furnished in the Annexure-I." This would make it clear that what was ordered on 31.7.1986 was a merger of two posts and their re-designation as 'Tax Collector'. Once two posts are merged and re-designated, it virtually means that all the posts are equalized. Therefore, even if any distinction had been maintained in the past, such distinction between the posts had been wiped out and all the posts had become a common category. b) What was ordered on 31.7.1986 was 'merger' and 're-designation' and not 'up gradation'. If it was a case of 'up gradation', it would indicate the intention of the employer to retain the distinction between both the categories. In a case of 'merger' and 're-designation', the distinction gets wiped out. c) After the merger and re-designation of the posts, the service rendered in the post prior to merger, cannot but be treated as qualifying service, in the re-designated category, for the purpose of Selection Grade. d) Even the guidelines issued in the appellant-Board proceedings dated 23.10.1992, make it clear that the service rendered in an equivalent post should be taken into account for advancement to Selection Grade. Clause-vi of para-5 of the said guidelines reads as follows:- "(vi) Service rendered in a lower post on other duty should not be taken into account as qualifying service in the higher post for advancement to Selection / Special Grade. The service rendered in an equivalent or higher post on other duty above should be taken into account for advancement to Selection/Special Grades to the extent he should have acted in the original post in the parent Department, but for his deputation." Therefore, the appellant-Board is bound by its own orders of merger and re-designation dated 31.7.1986 and its own guidelines dated 23.10.1992 regarding the grant of Selection Grade. e) It is only as a result of proper understanding of its own resolution dated 19.5.1986 and the guidelines dated 23.10.1992, that the appellant-Board thought it fit to grant Selection Grade to the respondents with effect from 1992 by taking into account the service rendered by them prior to merger. e) It is only as a result of proper understanding of its own resolution dated 19.5.1986 and the guidelines dated 23.10.1992, that the appellant-Board thought it fit to grant Selection Grade to the respondents with effect from 1992 by taking into account the service rendered by them prior to merger. Therefore, the appellant-Board is not entitled to resile from its own orders and guidelines. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ appeals and the writ appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.