Judgment :- The above two writ petitions challenge G.O.2D No.75 Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 7. 1998, and further the petitioners seek re-fixation of their pension benefits by way of a direction. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. Concededly, the petitioner in WP No.2328/2006 joined service in the third respondent educational institution in the year 1967, while the petitioner in WP No.31166 of 2005 joined in the same institution in the year 1970. Both were confirmed in 1969 and 1972 respectively. Both retired from service in the year 1995. Their pension was also fixed, and they were actually being paid as per the fixation from the time of their retirement. A G.O. came to be passed which is the impugned one, in G.O.2D No.75 Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 7. 1998, whereby re-fixation of the pension was directed to be done on the ground that they did not have the grant till 1979, and hence, for that period, they were not entitled to have the pension benefits on the basis of the salary what was paid to them at that time, and hence, it was to be re-fixed. While the matter stood thus, in some of the cases, they were re-fixed, and the aggrieved parties have challenged before this Court. 4. While the matter stood thus, in some of the cases, they were re-fixed, and the aggrieved parties have challenged before this Court. 4. As far as these two writ petitions are concerned, the petitioners have challenged the G.O. for re-fixation on the grounds that as regards the teaching staff, the re-fixation has not been ordered; that once there was non-payment of grant for the particular period prior to 1979, if could be applied to these petitioners who are the non-teaching staff, the same was also very well available to the teaching staff; but, that was not followed; that as far as the teaching staff was concerned, the period prior to 1979 during which there was no grant made by the Government, was also taken into consideration for fixing pension benefits, and thus, there is a discrimination between the teaching staff and the non-teaching staff, which was thoroughly unreasonable; that under the circumstances, the re-fixation of the pension benefits of these petitioners taking into account the period from the time of their joining service till 1979 though aid was not given by the Government, has got to be ordered, and the G.O. in that regard has got to be quashed, since it is discriminatory and also on the ground of unreasonableness. 5. 5. The Court heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2, according to whom, both the writ petitions have got to be dismissed on two grounds; that firstly, the petitioners have approached this Court after a decade from the time of their retirement; that on the ground of laches, the petitions were to be dismissed; that secondly, there is no discrimination or disparity between the teaching staff and the nonteaching staff as contended by the petitioners side, for the reason that as far as the teaching staff was concerned, their avenue of promotion was very little; but, these petitioners who were actually working as Peons, had got wide area of promotion; that apart from that, the educational qualifications required for the teaching staff and what is required for the petitioners are entirely different; that apart from that, the conditions of service were also different; that under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot have the pension benefits equating themselves along with the teaching staff, and thus, neither the G.O. has got to be quashed for any reason as put forth by the petitioners side, nor the circumstances do warrant for re-fixation of the pension benefits, and hence, the writ petitions have got to be dismissed. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. This Court is of the considered opinion that both the writ petitions require an order of dismissal in the hands of this court. 7. It is not in controversy that these petitioners were actually working as Peons in the third respondent educational institution from 1967 and 1970 respectively. Their services were also confirmed, and both have retired from service in 1995. On the retirement, their pension benefits have been fixed from 4. 1979 from which date the institution was given aid by the State. Now, they want to have the re-fixation taking into consideration the prior period i.e., from the time of joining the service till 4. 1979, along with the teaching staff stating that those teaching staffs have also been given the pension benefits taking into consideration the period prior to 1979 during which the aid was not made. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the request of the petitioners cannot be considered on two grounds. 1979, along with the teaching staff stating that those teaching staffs have also been given the pension benefits taking into consideration the period prior to 1979 during which the aid was not made. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the request of the petitioners cannot be considered on two grounds. Firstly, this Court is able to see that the request was made by way of writ petitions after a period of 10 years. In a given case, where the laches are noticed, the issuance of writ has got to be refused unless and until special circumstances are noticed. In the instant case, no special circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, are noticed. Thus, on the ground of latches, the petitions require an order of dismissal. 8. Secondly, according to the petitioners Counsel, the said G.O. for re-fixation has got to be quashed on the ground of discrimination between the teaching staff and the nonteaching staff. Admittedly, the petitioners were non-teaching staffs, and the conditions of service and educational qualifications in respect of teaching staff and non-teaching staff, are entirely different. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the area of promotion what is available to these petitioners during their tenure of service, was not available to the persons employed as teaching staff. Merely because the pensionary benefits have been accorded to the teaching staff for the period prior to 1979 when there was no grant, taking into consideration their educational qualification, conditions of service and the area of promotion, which was limited, now it cannot be applied to the non-teaching staff. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no discrimination or disparity could be noticed on that ground, and hence, neither the G.O. could be quashed, nor the re-fixation could be ordered. Therefore, both these writ petitions fail, and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed.