Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant, on contract basis, on 11. 87, by the second respondent, by his proceedings in Mu.Ka.No.38967/A5/87, dated 287. The petitioner was possessing B.Sc., and B.Ed., degrees at the time of his appointment. The service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 211. 90, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 22. 91. Though the petitioner was eligible to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. from 11. 87, he was regularized only from 22. 91, after nearly three years from the date of his initial appointment. Since the petitioner was 35 years and three months old at the time of his initial appointment, the second respondent had sent a proposal to the Government to obtain the age relaxation. Based on the said request, the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1609, Education Department, dated 290. The service of the petitioner has been regularized only from the date of the said Government Order and not from the date of his initial appointment. Though the petitioner was appointed along with several other Secondary Grade Teachers, on contract basis, in the time scale of pay, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.510, Education, dated 5. 89, several teachers in the High Schools, Elementary schools and Middle Schools have been regularized with effect from the date of their initial appointment. Further, several persons appointed along with the petitioner in the High School were promoted as B.T. Assistant. However, the petitioner has been deprived of such benefits. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7882 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.18885 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that in G.O.Ms.No.510, Education, dated 5. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that in G.O.Ms.No.510, Education, dated 5. 89, it was ordered that the services of all serving Secondary Grade Teachers with B.T and Post Graduate qualifications, Tamil Pandit qualification and Secondary Grade qualification, who were appointed on contract basis and who had renewed their contracts of appointment during the academic year 1988-89 be regularized, with effect from the date of joining duty in the academic year 1988-89 in the category of Secondary Grade Teacher, provided they satisfy the age rule prescribed in the special rules. It was also ordered that the services of those teachers who do not satisfy the rule be regularized only after the rule relating to the qualification, with reference to the age, is relaxed by the Government. Since the petitioner had crossed the age of 35 years at the time of his joining in service, a Government Order had to be obtained granting age relaxation for his appointment. Therefore, the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.1609, Education Department, dated 211. 90, relaxing the age limit applicable to the post in which the petitioner was initially appointed. Therefore, when the appointment of the petitioner was regularized, it was done only from the date when the Government had granted him the age relaxation. The other persons whose names have been cited by the petitioner had been appointed as they were fully qualified at the time of their appointment. Therefore, they were regularized from the date of their initial appointment. In such circumstances, the services of the petitioner from 211. 90 is in order and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner does not deserve any consideration. 4. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court several orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances, directing the respondents therein to regularize the service of the petitioners with effect from the initial date of their appointment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that it would suffice if the period between the initial date of his appointment and the date of regularisation of his service, is counted for calculating the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that it would suffice if the period between the initial date of his appointment and the date of regularisation of his service, is counted for calculating the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to show sufficient cause or reason to justify the act of the respondents in regularizing the service of the petitioner only with effect from 211. 90 and not from 11. 87, when he was initially appointed in service. The only ground raised on behalf of the respondents is that his service has been regularized from the date of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1609, Education Department, dated 211. 90, by which the Government had granted age relaxation in favour of the petitioner to enable the respondents to regularize his appointment as a Secondary Grade Assistant. 7. Once the relaxation is granted by the Government and the appointment of the petitioner, on 11. 87, is regularized, it would be an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner only from 211. 90 and not from 87. In such view of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the period between 11. 87, which is the date of the petitioners initial appointment and 211. 90, when his service was regularized, for the purpose of payment of his retiral benefits, as and when they become due, in accordance with the rules applicable to his service. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, as noted above. No costs.