Judgment :- Review Application (MD)No.20 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 15.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.4979 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.21 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 16.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.4981 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.22 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 23.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5373 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.23 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5297 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.24 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5298 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.25 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5304 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.26 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5305 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.27 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5306 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.28 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5307 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.28 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5307 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.29 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5308 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.30 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5309 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.31 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5310 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Review Application (MD)No.32 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C r/w 111 of C.P.C. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 22.6.2005 made in W.P.(MD) No.5311 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Contempt Petition (MD)No.237 of 2005 has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for disobeying the order passed by this Court dated 15.6.2005 made in W.P.No.4978 of 2005 on the file of this Court. Contempt Petition (MD)No.104 of 2006 has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for disobeying the order passed by this Court dated 15.6.2005 made in W.P.No.4979 of 2005 on the file of this Court.) Common Order: All the 14 Review Petitions are filed by the State of Tamil Nadu along with the Director of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities and the Special Deputy Collector, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai against the order of the learned Judge dated 15.6.2005, 16.6.2005 and 22.6.2005 made in various Writ Petitions noted above granting direction to the review petitioners to implement the common order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 20.3.2002 made in O.A.No.587/1997 and batch cases. 2. 2. This Court in all the Writ Petitions in which the present review petitions are filed extracted the operative portion of the Tribunals order which is as follows: "1. The petitioners are Headmasters, promoted in the said post after 01.06.1988 in the schools run by Kallar Reclamation Department. Their claim is that they should be given Selection Grade and Special Grade after taking into the service as Secondary Grade Teachers before and after 01.06.1988 along with the service rendered as Headmasters of Elementary Schools. They claim the benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education Department dated 05.10.1990 issued in respect of other Elementary Schools coming under the control of Director Elementary Education. 2. Similar Original Applications have been filed in a batch of cases in O.A.Nos.3745 and 3911 of 1992 etc., wherein I have passed orders on 19.3.2002 allowing them following the earlier orders of this Tribunal. The facts are identical. 3. In the circumstances, the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. Therefore, the petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be granted Selection Grade and Special Grade after taking into account the service rendered by them in the Secondary Grade Cadre along with the service rendered as Elementary School Headmasters before and after 01.06.1988. The petitions are ordered as above." 3. It was stated by this Court that the Tribunals orders have attained finality and the State not having challenged the earlier order, a direction was issued to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal within a time frame of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Against the non-implementation of the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.4978 of 2005 dated 15.6.2005, Contempt Petition (MD)No.237 of 2005 has been filed by the respondent. As against the order of the learned Judge dated 15.6.2005 in W.P.(MD)No.4978 of 2005, Review Application (MD) No.8 of 2007 has been filed by the State as stated already. 5. As against the non-implementation of the order in W.P.(MD)No.4979 of 2005 dated 15.6.2005, Contempt Petition (MD) No.104 of 2006 has been filed by the respondent. As against the said order, Review Application No.20 of 2007 has been filed by the State. 6. All these matters are taken together in view of the commonality of the issues involved. 7. Heard Mr.N.Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General, leading Mrs. As against the said order, Review Application No.20 of 2007 has been filed by the State. 6. All these matters are taken together in view of the commonality of the issues involved. 7. Heard Mr.N.Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General, leading Mrs. V.Chellammal, Special Government Pleader for review petitioners and for respondents in the Contempt Petitions and Mr. R.Inbaraj, learned counsel for all the contesting respondents and petitioners in the Contempt Petitions and have perused the records. 5. 8. All these disputes emanated firstly from the petitioner/State in issuing G.O.Ms.No.1381 Education Department dated 5.10.1990. By the said order, the Government directed the Headmasters of Primary Schools under the Government, local bodies and all kind of managements who were in position as on 1.6.1988 to award Special Grade and Selection Grade in the revised scales on or after 1.6.1988 considering period of service rendered as Secondary Grade Teachers as well as Primary School Headmasters prior to 1.6.1988. Since the Governments G.O. dated 1.6.1988, the post of Headmasters carries a higher scale of pay than that of the Secondary Grade Teacher those who are promoted as Headmasters after 1.6.1988 were permitted to have their fixation of pay in the post of Headmasters as provided under Fundamental Rule 22(b). 6. 9. It must be stated here that before 1.6.1988, the Headmasters of Primary Schools run by the Government were not given separate scale of pay and the senior most teacher was made as a Headmaster only with a meagre personal pay attached to the said individual. In view of the onerous of duties imposed on the headmasters, many teachers were not willing to shoulder the responsibility as the personal pay granted was a negligible amount and hence there was no clamour for getting the said post. However, after the Pay Commissions recommendation fixing a new scale of pay for the post of Headmasters, there was a clamour to give the said scale of pay so that it also helped in getting both the senior scale of pay and selection grade pay irrespective of the fact whether they were holding the post of Headmasters or not. 7. 10. 7. 10. Therefore, when Original Applications were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the Government Order dated 1.6.1988 prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education Department dated 5.10.1990, the contention therein was that those persons who were eligible to get promotions before 1.6.1988 but due to fortituous circumstances, they were not promoted as on 1.6.1988 as Headmasters and there were juniors who happened to hold the post of Headmasters were given benefits of G.O.,. There were 3 cases in this category viz., O.A.No.2897, 3009 and 3010 of 1991. 8. 11. The Tribunal accepting the arguments of the applicants in those three applications, set aside the Government Order by stating that it prescribed a differential treatment to the same categories of teachers. Therefore, the order in G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education Department dated 5.10.1990 was quashed. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: " ... The only course available to the Court would be to quash the entire provision and required the Government to re-examine the matter and evolve a policy which does not involve a classification not conforming to the constitutional provisions, as well as the test of fairness, which should govern all administrative action. Accordingly, paragraphs 3 and 4 of G.O.Ms.No.1381 Education Department dated 5.10.1990 are quashed. The Government is directed to re-examine the matter to evolve a rational basis for fixation of pay of headmasters of elementary schools taking into account service of the individuals in different capacities, the circumstances of their appointment and the need to ensure uniform treatment of all persons in the cadre without any element of arbitrariness or irrationality." 12. Subsequent to this order, the matter was not challenged by the State but G.O.Ms.No.300, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 7.4.1994 was issued. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the said order are extracted below: "3. Government have carefully examined the observations of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and decided to accept the suggestion that Selection Grade and Special Grade for Headmaster, Primary School should be granted based on the service rendered in the post of Headmaster, Primary School alone. Accordingly, Government direct that the orders issued in the G.O read above shall stand cancelled. 4. Government direct that Headmasters of primary School be awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade based on the length of service rendered in the post of Headmaster, Primary School. Accordingly, Government direct that the orders issued in the G.O read above shall stand cancelled. 4. Government direct that Headmasters of primary School be awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade based on the length of service rendered in the post of Headmaster, Primary School. Government further direct that in respect of all these Headmaster of Primary School who have already availed the benefit of Selection Grade/Special Grade as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education Department, dt. 5.10.90 by counting the service in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Headmaster, Primary School, they shall be allowed for retain their pay now drawn and fixed at the appropriate stage in the ordinary Grade or Selection Grade Scales of pay and fixed at the appropriate stage in the ordinary Grade of Selection Grade scales of pay normally admissible to them as Headmaster, Primary School. Accordingly, a Secondary Grade Teacher entitled for special Grade Scale of Rs.1640-2900 in the post of Secondary grade Teacher and acted as Headmaster, Primary School on 1.6.88 and allowed fixation of pay in the Special grade scale of Rs.2000-3200 admissible to Headmaster, Primary School shall be allowed to retain that pay in the Special Grade Scale of Secondary Grade Teachers, viz. Rs.1640-2900. This fixation shall be made with effect from 1st May 1994. Illustrations are given in the Annexure to this order. 5. Government also direct that those seniors promoted to the post of Headmaster, Primary School after 1.6.88 shall have no claim over the pay of juniors who were given pay protection as per these orders. Further, there may be cases where a junior would be moved to Selection Grade or Special Grade further, because of more number of years of service as headmaster, Primary School compared as a senior who would be entitled for Selection Grade or Special Grade in the post of Headmaster, Primary School from a later date for the reason he would have rendered lesser number of years of service as Headmaster, Primary School. In this case, the junior would be getting more pay than his seniors. Government direct that these cases of Junior getting more pay than senior should Act be rectified as movement to Selection Grade/Special Grade is based on the length of service in the post of headmaster, Primary School and not with reference to the total service as Secondary Grade Teacher and headmaster, primary School. 6. Government direct that these cases of Junior getting more pay than senior should Act be rectified as movement to Selection Grade/Special Grade is based on the length of service in the post of headmaster, Primary School and not with reference to the total service as Secondary Grade Teacher and headmaster, primary School. 6. The Director of Elementary Education is requested to take immediate action to arrange for re-fixation of pay of all Headmasters, Primary Schools per those orders. The departmental audit shall undertake audit of pay fixation of the Headmasters of Primary Schools." 13. Subsequently, several orders were issued by the Government with reference to the same subject. The last being G.O.Ms.No.185, School Education Department 16.12.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.160 dated 23.8.2005. In the meanwhile, a batch of O.As were filed by contesting respondents being the first applicant (K.Saroja) O.A.No.587 of 1997 (the present Contempt Petitioner in Contempt Petition (MD) No.237 of 2005). All these contesting respondents are working in various Schools run under the control of the second and third respondents. These Original Applications were filed with a view to enforce G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education Department dated 5.10.1990. The Tribunal in its order dated 20.3.2002 extracted the prayer of the petitioner in para 2 of its order, which is as follows: "2. The petitioners are Headmasters, promoted in the said post after 1.6.1988 in the schools run by Kallar Reclamation Department. Their claim is that they should be given selection grade and special grade after taking into the service as Secondary Grade Teachers before and after 1.6.1988 along with the service rendered as Headmasters of Elementary Schools. They claim the benefits as per G.O.Ms.NO.1381, Education, dated 5.10.1990 issued in respect of other Elementary Schools running under the control of Director of Elementary Education." .14. In the operative portion viz., para 3 of the order, the Tribunal granted relief, which is as follows: ."3. In the circumstances, the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. Therefore, the petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be granted selection grade and special grade after taking into account the service rendered by them in the secondary grade cadre along with the service rendered as Elementary School Headmasters before and after 1.6.1988. The petitions are ordered as above." 2. 15. In fact, for enforcing this order only, Writ Petitions were filed by the respective contesting respondents and they were allowed by this Court. The petitions are ordered as above." 2. 15. In fact, for enforcing this order only, Writ Petitions were filed by the respective contesting respondents and they were allowed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Review Petitions have been filed by the State and two Contempt Petitions have been filed by two contesting respondents. 3. 16. At this stage, it must be stated that when the contesting respondents sought to enforce G.O.Ms.No.1381 Education Department, dated 5.10.1990 with their Original Applications filed in the year 1997(which came up for disposal on 23.2.2002), the said G.O. itself was not in existence, as already by an Order dated 24.9.1993, the Tribunal had quashed the said G.O. and directed the Government to have a fresh rule on the said subject matter. Therefore, neither the petitioners informed the Court about the previous order nor the State brought to the notice of the Tribunal about the said order being quashed by the Tribunal with further directions. The Tribunal oblivious of the said fact, allowed the prayer of the petitioner without any modification or took into account the subsequent developments. 4. 17. In terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, a subsequent Tribunal is bound by the decisions of the previous Tribunal and there cannot be an order passed by the Tribunal contrary to the earlier directions of the Tribunal. .18. The Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India [(1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 473] held that the doctrine of precedent will apply even to the Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The relevant passage found in para 6 reads as follows: ."6. Consistency, certainty and uniformity in the field of judicial decisions are considered to be the benefits arising out of the “Doctrine of Precedent”. The precedent sets a pattern upon which a future conduct may be based. One of the basic principles of administration of justice is, that the cases should be decided alike. Thus the doctrine of precedent is applicable to the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Whenever an application under Section 19 of the Act is filed and the question involved in the said application stands concluded by some earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal necessarily has to take into account the judgment rendered in the earlier case, as a precedent and decide the application accordingly. Whenever an application under Section 19 of the Act is filed and the question involved in the said application stands concluded by some earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal necessarily has to take into account the judgment rendered in the earlier case, as a precedent and decide the application accordingly. The Tribunal may either agree with the view taken in the earlier judgment or it may dissent. If it dissents, then the matter can be referred to a larger Bench/Full Bench and place the matter before the Chairman for constituting a larger Bench so that there may be no conflict upon the two Benches. The larger Bench, then, has to consider the correctness of the earlier decision in disposing of the later application. The larger Bench can overrule the view taken in the earlier judgment and declare the law, which would be binding on all the benches [see John Lucas 1987 3 ATC 328 (Bag) (FB)]. 5. 19. Even the review petitioners did not bring it to the notice of the Tribunal about the quashing of G.O.1381, Education Department dated 5.10.1990 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.300 Education Department dated 7.4.1994 and various clarifications, orders issued by the Government in this regard. Further, when the Writ Petitions were filed by the contesting respondents, they have also never brought to the notice of this Court, the ultimate G.O.Ms.No.185 School Education Department dated 16.12.2002. In the subsequent order in G.O.Ms.No.160 School Education Department dated 23.8.2005, it was clearly stated that G.O.Ms.No.1381 Education Department dated 5.10.1990 was already set aside by the Administrative Tribunal and no Headmasters of any Elementary School can have their wages fixed in terms of the said G.O.,. Unfortunately, all these factors were not brought to the notice of this Court, when this Court issued directions to the Government to implement the orders of the Tribunal, which was based upon a non-existent G.O.Ms.No.1381 Education Department dated 5.10.1990. For these state of affairs, only the petitioners will have to blame themselves. Of course, the role of the State in this regard cannot be minimised when the State, confronted by filing of Writ Petitions by various groups, did not bring it to the notice of the Court the correct factual and legal position. It was bound to result in a state of anarchy in the matter of implementation of orders and that really happened. .20. It was bound to result in a state of anarchy in the matter of implementation of orders and that really happened. .20. It is under these circumstances, the review petitioners/State filed the present Review Petitions seeking to review the order of this Court. Technically, the Review Petitions should have been filed only to review the order of the Tribunal dated 20.3.2002 and not a consequential order of direction passed by this Court. Since the Tribunal itself has been abolished in the year 2006, there is no possibility of the State filing any Review Petition. At least, they should have filed a Writ Petition challenging the Tribunals order before this Court and even that was not done. In some cases, orders of the Tribunals have also been given effect to by various officers of the State. Therefore, .when faced with several consequential orders, it was impossible for the State to file several Writ Petitions. 6. 21. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the State is caught in between two orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, which were diametrically opposite to each other and this Court must come to rescue of the State and resolve the issue one way or the other. 7. 22. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that after the Tribunal quashing G.O.Ms.No.1381, subsequent order of the Tribunal directing to give effect to the said G.O., is a nullity, non-est and unenforceable. 8. 23. This Court being constituted under Article 226 of the Constitution must give complete and effective justice so that the vagaries of the lower Courts order should not be a burden on the State to implement mutually contradictory orders. In public interest, the present review petitions have been filed by the State. 9. 24. In A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak and another [(1988) 2 Supreme Court Cases 602], the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court already vide its decision dealt with the concept of "ex debito justitiae". .25. Further, the following passage found in para 75 of the judgment cited supra may be usefully extracted: ."75. Our attention was drawn to Article 145(e) and it was submitted that review can be made only where power is expressly conferred and the review is subject to the rules made under Article 145(e) by the Supreme Court. The principle of finality on which the article proceeds applies to both judgments and orders made by the Supreme Court. Our attention was drawn to Article 145(e) and it was submitted that review can be made only where power is expressly conferred and the review is subject to the rules made under Article 145(e) by the Supreme Court. The principle of finality on which the article proceeds applies to both judgments and orders made by the Supreme Court. But directions given per incuriam and in violation of certain constitutional limitations and in derogation of the principles of natural justice can always be remedied by the court ex debito justitiae. Shri Jethmalani’s submission was that ex debito justitiae, these directions could not be recalled. We are unable to agree with this submission. 10. 26. Further, the following passage found in para 76 may be usefully extracted: "76. The Privy Council in Isaacs v. Robertson 36 held that orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in the course of contentious litigation are either regular or irregular. If an order is regular it can only be set aside by an appellate court; if it is irregular it can be set aside by the court that made it on application being made to that court either under rules of court dealing expressly with setting aside orders for irregularity or ex debito justitiae if the circumstances warranted, namely, where there was a breach of the rules of natural justice etc. Shri Jethmalani urged before us that Lord Diplock had in express terms rejected the argument that any orders of a superior court of unlimited jurisdiction can ever be void in the sense that they can be ignored with impunity. We are not concerned with that. Lord Diplock delivered the judgment. Another Judge who sat in the Privy Council with him was Lord Keith of Kinkel. Both these Law Lords were parties to the House of Lords judgment in In Re Recal Communications Ltd. case 48 and Their Lordships did not extend this principle any further. Shri Jethmalani submitted that there was no question of reviewing an order passed on the construction of law. Lord Scarman refused to extend the Anisminic 14 principle to superior courts by the felicitous statement that this amounted to comparison of in comparables. We are not concerned with this controversy. We are not comparing in comparables. Shri Jethmalani submitted that there was no question of reviewing an order passed on the construction of law. Lord Scarman refused to extend the Anisminic 14 principle to superior courts by the felicitous statement that this amounted to comparison of in comparables. We are not concerned with this controversy. We are not comparing in comparables. We arc correcting an irregularity committed by court not on construction or misconstruction of a statute but on non-perception of certain provisions and certain authorities which would amount to derogation of the constitutional rights of the citizen." 27. The Supreme Court in its judgment in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 406] dealt with the power of the Courts including the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The following passage found in para 37 may be usefully extracted: "37. Since this Court has power of judicial superintendence and control over all the courts and tribunals functioning in the entire territory of the country, it has a corresponding duty to protect and safeguard the interest of inferior courts to ensure the flow of the stream of justice in the courts without any interference or attack from any quarter.... The Supreme Court and the High Court both exercise concurrent jurisdiction under the constitutional scheme in matters relating to fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution...." 2. 28. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the matter has to be looked in depth. However, Mr. R.Inbaraj, learned counsel for the contesting respondents stated that the attempt by the State to file the Review Petitions is misconceived, legally impermissible and discriminatory. With the counter affidavit filed and in the written arguments filed in the Review Petitions, he contended that the State has no regard for the Courts order and the State has no locus-standi to file the Review Petitions to reopen the concluded issues. 3. 29. He has also stated that in similar cases, not in respect of another department, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the Writ Petitions filed against the Tribunals order. But those petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay. He also stated in some cases, the Tribunals orders were complied with. Therefore, the Review Petitions should be dismissed but with reference to the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, there is no answer from the contesting respondents. 4. 30. But those petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay. He also stated in some cases, the Tribunals orders were complied with. Therefore, the Review Petitions should be dismissed but with reference to the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, there is no answer from the contesting respondents. 4. 30. Further, he fairly submitted that in respect of Schools run by the Kallar Reclamation Department, there was no post of Headmaster for Elementary Schools and they were established only from 1.2.1990 and because of this fact, there is no separate pay fixed for the Headmasters at the time of grant of 5th Pay Commission as these Schools never had the post of Headmaster. 5. 31. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that if the claims of the contesting respondents are allowed, then it will result in an anomalous situation, thereby for each post of an Elementary School Headmaster, there will be minimum 5 claimants said to be holding the post of Headmaster and consequent fixation of seniority, and Selection Grade will have to be given on the basis of their allegedly held the post or notional drawl pay of an Headmaster. 6. 32. The learned Additional Advocate General also stated that inasmuch having empowered to take note of the previous Tribunals judgment and issued modified order in G.O.Ms.No.185 School Education dated 16l.12.2002. It was further modified in G.O.Ms.No.160 School Education dated 23.8.2005 and the said orders not being challenged by the contesting respondents and there is no question of relying upon the subsequent Tribunals order and it had become nullity and non-est. 7. 33. The last order dated 23.8.2005, which was very much available before this Court, when a direction was issued, clearly states that no teachers salary will be fixed on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1381 dated 5.10.1990, which had already been set aside by the Tribunal. 8. 34. In fact, even that G.O. is now the subject matter of challenge in many Writ Petitions. When that is the case the contesting respondents cannot have an unjust enrichment on the basis of the subsequent Tribunals order, which itself was passed contrary to the earlier Tribunals order. 9. 35. Since all these facts were not brought to the notice of this Court, directions were issued by this Court on 15.6.2005 allowing the case of the contesting respondents. 9. 35. Since all these facts were not brought to the notice of this Court, directions were issued by this Court on 15.6.2005 allowing the case of the contesting respondents. Therefore, in order to set right the record, it is just and necessary that Review Applications should be allowed and the earlier directions to implement the orders of the Tribunal dated 20.3.2002 should stand set aside. Accordingly, all the 14 Review Applications are allowed. 36. In view of the orders in the Review Applications, there is no question of respondents of committing any contempt of the orders of this Court. Hence, both the Contempt Petitions (MD) Nos.237 of 2005 and 104 of 2006 are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.