Judgment It is stated that all the petitioners are working as Secondary Grade Teachers, in panchayat union middle schools and elementary schools in Senthurai panchayat union in the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education and Subordinate Service, under the control of the respondents. 2. It is further stated that all the petitioners are qualified as secondary grade teachers and they are eligible to be appointed as Secondary teachers in the Government schools and the schools run under the other local bodies. The scale of pay prescribed for the post of secondary grade teacher is Rs.1200-2040, as per the recommendations of the Vth pay Commission, under G.O.Ms.No.666, dated 26. 1989, with effect from 6. 1988. The petitioners were initially appointed in different panchayat unions and presently, they are working in Senthurai panchayat Union schools. 3. It is further stated that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1521, dated 111. 1990, had fixed a consolidated pay of Rs.800/-for the post of secondary grade teacher by converting the post of secondary grade teacher into junior grade secondary grade teacher from the year 1990-1991, without any change in the work. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the said Government order applies to the vacancies which arose due to the retirement, resignation, death and promotion. As such the petitioners were appointed and paid Rs.800/-on the ground that the post of secondary grade teachers were deemed as downgraded and the nomenclature was changed to that of junior grade secondary grade teacher from secondary grade teacher. 5. The petitioner has further stated that G.O.Ms.No.1524, Education, dated 111. 1990, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and it is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. .6. It is further stated that from the date of their appointments, the petitioners have been discharging the same function in the union elementary and middle schools as that of secondary grade teachers. Except the change in nomenclature there is no other difference in the nature of duties performed by the petitioners as compared to that of secondary grade teachers. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for equal pay of Rs.1200-2040 which is being paid to the regular secondary grade teachers in union schools. The petitioners are equally qualified and are doing identical work as that of the secondary grade teachers. Therefore, the petitioners have been demanding the same scale of pay as that of the secondary grade teachers. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for equal pay of Rs.1200-2040 which is being paid to the regular secondary grade teachers in union schools. The petitioners are equally qualified and are doing identical work as that of the secondary grade teachers. Therefore, the petitioners have been demanding the same scale of pay as that of the secondary grade teachers. Only because of G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 1. 1993, the petitioners have been denied the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 from the date of their appointments. In such circumstances, the petitioners have filed the original application in O.A.No.3407 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administration Tribunal which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.30487 of 2006. 7. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed a decision of this Court reported in Pappa S and others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2000-2-LW 460). Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said decision reads as follows: "33. Though all appointments for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and other posts were brought into regular scale of pay with effect from 9. 1992 in G.O.Ms.No.20, Education Department, dated 1. 1993 and G.O.Ms.No.495, Education-M1-Department,dated 15. 1993, the monetary benefits were given only from 4. 1996 i.e., the date of the order, No.279 Education dated 4. 1996. For the reasons mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, I hold that all the persons for whom appointments were made under G.O.Ms.No.1524, Education, dated 111. 1990 and G.O.Ms.No.1669, Education, dated 112. 1990 be given regular scale of pay from the respective date of appointment and they are also entitled monetary benefits from the date of their respective initial appointment. No reason was assigned in G.O.Ms.No.279, Education dated 4. 1996 and G.O.Ms.No.5 Education dated 1. 1997 for giving monetary benefit only with effect from 4. 1996, when all the teachers and other persons, appointed earlier, are getting time scale of pay and performing the same work. Though the Government after realising the mistake, brought all those persons into regular scale of pay with effect from 9. 1992, the reasons for giving monetary benefit from 4. 1996 is not explained. In the absence of any reason, the action of the Government cannot be sustained. Though the Government after realising the mistake, brought all those persons into regular scale of pay with effect from 9. 1992, the reasons for giving monetary benefit from 4. 1996 is not explained. In the absence of any reason, the action of the Government cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, learned Additional Advocate General is also not in a position to sustain the order giving monetary benefit from 4. 1996. As observed in 1986-I-L.L.J.403 (cited supra), in terms of Article 39(d), equal pay for equal work should be paid from the date of employment and without any reason much less acceptable reason, and the Government cannot postpone the equal pay and fix a future date arbitrarily. 34. Under these circumstances, the impugned Government Orders down-grading the posts of Secondary Grade Teacher and Specialist Teacher drawing Secondary Grade scale of pay as Secondary Grade (Junior Teacher and Specialist Teacher (Junior) respectively on consolidated emoluments of Rs.800/-per month in Government, Local Body (Municipal/Corporation/Panchayat Union) and Aided schools in the year 1990-91 on account of retirement, resignation, death etc., are void. All appointments made in pursuance of the impugned orders shall be treated as regular appointments and the petitioners are entitled to regular time-scale of pay with effect from the date of their respective initial appointments and not from the date as indicated in the Government Orders. The impugned Government Orders and other orders/proceedings issued thereto are quashed. Consequently all the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs in all the writ petitions. All the interim petitions are closed." 9. It has also been stated that writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1585 to 1591 of 2001, had been filed challenging the above said decision. However, the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 14. 2008, had dismissed the said writ appeals. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Education) appearing for the respondents has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 11. In view of the decision rendered by this Court, by its order, dated 14. 2008, made in writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1585 to 1591 of 2001, the present writ petition stands allowed. No costs.