Judgment :- In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the G.O.Ms.No.276 School Education Higher Secondary Education-I Department, dated 9.9.1999 and to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the members of the petitioner association from the date of their initial appointment with all attendant find consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner Association claims to be a registered body representing the cause of the Post Graduate Assistants working in Government Higher Secondary Schools, possessing M.A., M.Sc., and M.Com., degrees at the time of their initial appointment prior to 1981. According to the petitioner Association, 10+2 pattern of education was introduced from 1978 and due to want of qualified persons, P.G.Holders, without B.T. qualification were recruited for various subjects. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.720 Education, dated 28.4.1981 issued special rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Services with retrospective effect from 1.7.1978 as per which B.T. or B.Ed., apart from P.G.degree was, prescribed as qualification. According to Rule 11, five years time was granted to the teachers to qualify themselves, who did not possess the required qualification. Granting of time in the said Government Order was challenged before the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3617 of 1994 and it was contended by the petitioner Association that they qualify with B.T. or B.Ed., degrees. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal an the respondents filed W.P.Nos.2911 and 3041 before this Court and a Division Bench Court by order dated 24.3.1998 modified order of the Tribunal and held as under: "... We are of the view that the direction issued by the Tribunal can be suitably modified to take care of the rights of both ties. No doubt the Tribunal, even in extraordinary circumstances shown t6 in this case, ought to have directed the Government to consider the question of relaxation of the relevant rules to regularise services of the members of the applicant Association, instead of ordering regularisation of service by itself. The Apex as well as High Court have often held that the upon the competent authority under the cannot be taken by the Court by t away ordering for a particular relief when the discretion in respect thereof also rests to considerable extent with the com authority. The Apex as well as High Court have often held that the upon the competent authority under the cannot be taken by the Court by t away ordering for a particular relief when the discretion in respect thereof also rests to considerable extent with the com authority. Taking into account all these aspects, we modify the order of the Tribunal by issuing a direction to the State Government or the competent authority exercising powers under the relevant rules, to consider the question of relaxation of the relevant rules to enable the regularisation of the vices of the Post-Graduate Assistants in subject in question from the date of their initial appointment with attendant service benefits, such as for pension, increment, selection grade, special grade without any claim of right of seniority or any claim for arrears prior to the date of relaxation. To the extent indicated above, the order of the Tribunal modified and the writ petitions are ordered only to that extent and in other respects, shall stand dismissed." From a reading of the said order it is made that the Post-Graduate Assistants in the in question who were not having BT/B.ED., qualification at the time of their initial appointment and who passed subsequently are entitled to get regularization of their service with all attendant benefits such as pension, increment selection grade, special grade, without any claim in seniority or any claim for arrears to the date of relaxation. The first respondent by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 9.9.1999 while implementing the said order, in stead of giving the benefit as ordered in the Division Bench order of this Court, stated that duration of Post-Graduate Teachers will taken into account only for pension. The said portion of the order is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the clear and categorical direction given by the Division Bench of this Court, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to restrict the benefit only for pension. 4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate also on behalf of the respondents. 5. In view of the above referred Division Bench order, (as against which S.L.P.(C) No.18974 of 1998 was also dismissed on 15.12.1998), I am of the considered view that, the first respondent is not justified in restricting the benefits only to pension. 4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate also on behalf of the respondents. 5. In view of the above referred Division Bench order, (as against which S.L.P.(C) No.18974 of 1998 was also dismissed on 15.12.1998), I am of the considered view that, the first respondent is not justified in restricting the benefits only to pension. The first respondent has jurisdiction to by-pass, the directions of the Division Bench of this Court, which has held its finality as the S.L.V filed against at order by the Department was also dismissed as stated above. 6. Hence the impugned order issued in G.O.Ms.No.276, dated 9.9.1999 in so far as it restricts the right of the Post-Graduate Teach without B.Ed., training that their services will be counted only for pension purposes, is aside and the first respondent is directed to pass a revised order fully implementing the order of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.P.Nos.2911 and 3041 of 1998, dated 24.3.1998, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.