Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Assistant, on 10. 66, and posted as Headmaster of Elementary School from 6. 69. The petitioner had worked as Headmaster of Elementary School till 30.73. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as as a Secondary Grade Assistant and continued as such till 6. 94. Again the petitioner was appointed as a Headmaster of Elementary School, on 7. 9.94 and he had continued to occupy the said post till the filing of the original application. 3. The petitioner has further stated that the persons who were appointed as Headmasters of Elementary Schools had been allowed to get the scale of pay at Rs.2000/- as a Special Grade Headmaster of Elementary School, as on 6. 88. When the petitioner was appointed, one Syed Rahamathulla was also appointed as Headmaster of Elementary School and he has been given the scale of pay at Rs.2,000/-, while the applicant has been denied the said pay scale. The only reason given is that Syed Rahamathulla was holding the post of the Headmaster of an Elementary School, as on 6. 88, whereas the petitioner did not hold the said post and therefore, he was not entitled to be given the scale of pay at Rs.2000/-. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present original application in O.A.No.4007 of 1996, which has transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.31170 of 2006. 4. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that prior to 6. 88 there was no difference in the scale of pay of a Headmaster of Elementary School and a Secondary Grade Assistant. The post of Headmaster was only an allowance post. When there is a common seniority and the unit of appointment is one and the same, there cannot be a difference in the scale of pay between a junior and a senior person. The senior person should get the same scale of pay as his junior, who has been placed on a higher scale of pay. The petitioner was posted as a Headmaster on 6. 69 and the said Syed Rahamathualla was appointed as a Headmaster, on 28. 73. The senior person should get the same scale of pay as his junior, who has been placed on a higher scale of pay. The petitioner was posted as a Headmaster on 6. 69 and the said Syed Rahamathualla was appointed as a Headmaster, on 28. 73. Since the petitioner had obeyed the orders of transfer, he has been denied the higher scale of pay on the ground that he was not working as a Headmaster of the Elementary School from 10. 73 to 9. 94. Therefore, he has been denied the benefit of Rs.2000/- available for the Special Grade Headmaster of Elementary School. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed before this Court an order, dated 10. 2007, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.37505 of 2002, under similar circumstances when the petitioner therein was denied the fixation of the scale of pay that had been fixed in favour of a person who was junior to the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents had not denied the fact that the petitioner was senior to Syed Rahamathualla, who was given the scale of pay at Rs.2000/-as he had held the post of Elementary School Headmaster, as on 6. 88. In fact the petitioner had been appointed as a Secondary Grade Headmaster of an Elementary School, on 6. 69, and continued as such till 30.73. Thereafter, he had been appointed as a Secondary Grade Assistant and worked as such till 9. 94. However, the petitioner has been denied the same scale of pay as Syed Rahamathualla, even though there was no difference in the scale of pay of a Headmaster of an Elementary School and a Secondary Grade Assistant, prior to 6. 88. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not denied the fact that the ratio of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, on 10. 2007, in W.P.No.37505 of 2002, would be applicable to the present case. 8. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 9. 8. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, in view of the order passed by this Court, on 10. 2007, in W.P.No.37505 of 2002, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.