Judgment :- The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote him by encadering isolated post of Cash Clerk with promotional avenues, with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted with all monetary and services benefits. 2. He has also filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 19593 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the respondents to revise the pay scale of the petitioner on par with that of his junior with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted as Assistant Section Officer and Section Officer and for other orders. 3. As both the writ petitions relate to same set of facts and pleadings, they are taken up and disposed of by this common order. 4. The facts of the writ petitions are as follows: Petitioner was originally appointed as Record Clerk in erstwhile CCB Finance Department. Thereafter, he was promoted as Shroff as per G.O.Ms.No. 720 Public (Service Special) dated 21. 1956. The post of Cash Clerk in (CCB) Finance Department was not initially sanctioned, but due to de-centralization of work relating to disbursement of cash and due to abolition of Finance (CCB), the post of cash clerk was allotted to Public (Bills) Department and thus the petitioner was promoted to the said post on 110. 1983. The educational qualification for the post of cash clerk is S.S.L.C. under Rule 16 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service and by relaxing the educational qualification, the petitioner was appointed as cash clerk as per orders in G.O.Ms. No. 669, Finance (CP-I) Department dated 110. 1982. His scale of pay of was fixed at Rs. 350-10-420-15-1600. The petitioner has further submitted that at the time of filing of the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, he had worked in the same post for 13 years and that the scale of pay for the post of cash clerk at the time of his initial appointment was equivalent to the Junior Assistant of the Secretariat, but the scale of pay of the petitioner was not revised on par with the scale of pay of Junior Assistant, though it was subsequently re-designated as Assistant. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his junior, who was appointed as Record Clerk was promoted to the level of Assistant Section Officer and that at the time of filling of the Original Application, he was to be promoted as Section Officer. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that the post of Cash Clerk in Public (Bills) Department is a solitary post in Secretariat and that there is no promotional avenue to the post. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the post of cash clerk was equivalent to the post of Assistant, the Government did not consider his post for inclusion as a feeder category for promotion to any higher posts, thereby, withheld him in the post of cash clerk for many years, since 1982, without any promotion. The petitioner has contended that the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 221 P & AR Department dated 5. 1990 have emphasized that, if the relaxation is once given exempting the person from possessing qualifications/passing department/special test and other obligatory tests prescribed for the post, it should be held valid for all further promotions. Therefore, petitioner has contended that once the qualification for appointment to the post of cash clerk is relaxed, he is entitled to be considered for further promotion to higher post. Pursuant to G. O. Ms. No. 1125, Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 110. 1989, the scale of pay of the petitioner the post of cash clerk was fixed at Rs.975-1660. The petitioner has made several representation setting out the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of cash clerk that are equivalent to the post of assistant in secretariat, to consider his case for promotion. However, the petitioner was transferred and posted on 12.07.1995 to Home (Bills) Department in the scale of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660. As the representation have not been considered by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file the above Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai for relief as stated supra. 6. The grounds raised in both the writ petitions are as follows: The post of cash clerk is equivalent to the post of junior Assistant (Re-designated as Assistant) in secretariat. Persons who had worked as record clerk, juniors to the petitioner, were promoted to the level of Assistant Section Officer at the time of filling of Original Application. When one Mr. The grounds raised in both the writ petitions are as follows: The post of cash clerk is equivalent to the post of junior Assistant (Re-designated as Assistant) in secretariat. Persons who had worked as record clerk, juniors to the petitioner, were promoted to the level of Assistant Section Officer at the time of filling of Original Application. When one Mr. K. Selvaraj, who came to be appointed, in the Finance Department on 111. 1970 with P.U.C. Qualification, had been promoted up to the 1evel of Assistant Section Officer on 4.04.1986 and was to be promoted as section officer. The petitioner, though entered in Government Service in the year 1958, after completion of 25 years of service, was promoted as cash clerk on 110. 1982. As the educational qualification was relaxed by G.O.Ms.No.669, Finance Department dated 110. 1982, the petitioner is entitled to be treated on par with that of his juniors and therefore he ought to have been considered for promotion to higher post as was done in other categories. The petitioner has further contended that as per the decisions of the courts, there shall not be isolation of posts without promotional avenues. The isolated posts should be grouped together and encadered to provide adequate chances for promotion. Though the petitioner had joined the department in the year 1958 and promoted to the post of cash clerk, according to him, it is equivalent to the post of junior Assistant (Re-designated as Assistant) in Secretariat and his case has not been considered for further promotion. He further submitted that the pay scale of record clerk, which is a lower category to the post of cash clerk, is Rs.975-1660 and the scale of pay for the post of cash clerk is also 975-1660. There is no difference between the scale of pay in the lower category and the promotional category and therefore, the respondents ought to have rectified the anomalies and created a promotional avenue to the post of cash clerk in Finance Department. There is no difference between the scale of pay in the lower category and the promotional category and therefore, the respondents ought to have rectified the anomalies and created a promotional avenue to the post of cash clerk in Finance Department. The non consideration of promotional avenue for the post of cash clerk in Finance (Bills) Department has resulted in gross discrimination and many of petitioner’s juniors, working in the other departments of the Secretariat, as record clerks and in lower posts, have been promoted as Assistant, Section officer, on the date of filing of the Original application and at the time of filing of the Original Application they were awaiting promotion as Section Officers. .7. The respondents in the counter affidavit have contended that Finance Department has two wings, namely, Regular Finance and Finance (Bills) units (i.e. erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau). For Administrative convenience, the erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau) was decentralized and Bills Units of Finance Department were attached to the administrative departments of Secretariat. Staff were appointed only for erstwhile Finance Department (Central Cash Bureau). According to the respondents, there is a separate channel of promotion for the staff of the erstwhile finance (Central Cash bureau). The promotional avenues available to the staff of regular finance is based on seniority and eligibility in the respective wing. Separate seniority was maintained for the staff of erstwhile Central Cash Bureau, category wise for further promotion. 8. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as record clerk for the erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau) and since he belongs to the category of erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau), he is not entitled to work in regular Finance and as such, he is not entitled to seek for promotion in regular finance department. .9. It is contended that the petitioner is also not entitled to seek promotion in the erstwhile central Bureau on par with the persons working in regular Finance. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as record clerk and later promoted as Shroff which required qualification of SSLC. He was given promotion as Cash Clerk by relaxing the relevant service rules. The scale of pay prescribed for the post Cash Clerk is Rs.975-1660 and the post is eligible for selection grade. The post of Cash Clerk is not the feeder category post for Assistant in regular/bills units of Finance Department. He was given promotion as Cash Clerk by relaxing the relevant service rules. The scale of pay prescribed for the post Cash Clerk is Rs.975-1660 and the post is eligible for selection grade. The post of Cash Clerk is not the feeder category post for Assistant in regular/bills units of Finance Department. As per the service rules, the record clerk, having SSLC qualification with five years experience, is entitled for promotion as Assistant in regular finance department. Since the petitioner was not appointed as record in regular Finance and he did not possess SSLC qualification, he is not considered for promotion as Assistant in regular Finance. At the time of filling of the counter affidavit, the staff of erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau) was a dying category. No staff of erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau) was working as Assistant/Assistant Section officer in Bills unit. As per the rules in force, the post of cash clerk in the erstwhile Finance (Central cash Bureau),is not entitled for any further promotion in erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau). The respondents have submitted that the duties, responsibilities and the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant are not equivalent to the post of Cash Clerk in erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau).The qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant is higher then the qualification prescribed for the post of Cash Clerk. The post of Cash Clerk is not the feeder category post to the post of Assistant Section officer. The post of Cash Clerk existed only in the Bills section and not in regular Finance and this post cannot be equated with the post of Assistant, in regular Finance. The scale of pay of Assistant is fixed at Rs.1100-1660, whereas the scale of pay to the post of Cash Clerk was fixed at Rs. 975-1660.The respondents have further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that once the rule is relaxed and the Government servant is exempted from having necessary qualification for a particular post, that exemption in entry point should be considered for all consequential promotions cannot be accepted. The exemption can be granted only at the entry point and it is not applicable to further promotional posts. The respondents have also submitted that in regular finance, record clerks, who have passed SSLC and completed five years of service, are eligible to become the Assistant. The exemption can be granted only at the entry point and it is not applicable to further promotional posts. The respondents have also submitted that in regular finance, record clerks, who have passed SSLC and completed five years of service, are eligible to become the Assistant. This provision is not applicable to the petitioner who was working as Cash Clerk in Bills Units of erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau) as per the existing service rules. The contention of the petitioner that once a non-graduate is appointed as Assistant he should be treated on par with graduate Assistant, is not at all applicable to the facts of the case. The post of cash clerk is entitled for selection grade scale of Rs.1200-2040 and special grade pay of Rs.1320-2040 and therefore, for the above said reasons, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. .11. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as record clerk in the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau. Consequent to decentralization, the concerned bill units of the finance department were attached to the concerned Administrative Departments of the secretariat. The Finance Department seemed to have two channels for promotion, one for the staff of erstwhile Finance (Central Cash Bureau) and the other for the staff of regular finance, based on the seniority and eligibility in the respective wings. The petitioner, who was appointed as record clerk in the erstwhile finance (Cash Bureau), was not eligible to work in regular finance. He was in the scale of pay of Rs.975-1660 and eligible for selection and special grade, pleadings disclose that the post of cash clerk in the erstwhile central cash bureau was not treated as equivalent to that of junior Assistant in regular finance, which was re-designated as Assistant, as the duties and responsibilities of the post were different. It is further evident that the post of cash clerk existed only in the bill section and not in regular finance. There was also a difference in scale of pay, as between the cash clerk and Assistant. The former was fixed at Rs.975-1660 and later at Rs.1100-1660. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that both the posts were treated as equivalent cannot be accepted. There was also a difference in scale of pay, as between the cash clerk and Assistant. The former was fixed at Rs.975-1660 and later at Rs.1100-1660. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that both the posts were treated as equivalent cannot be accepted. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that persons, who had joined much later in regular finance, as record clerks with SSLC qualification and five years experience, were promoted as assistant and thereafter to higher post in regular finance department, whereas the petitioner appointed as cash clerk in the erstwhile Central cash bureau, after relaxation of his education qualification, was stagnating in the said post for a long number of years and deserves to be examined for the reason that his juniors in regular finance department on account of fortuitous circumstances have gained promotion. 12. In this context, it is relevant to consider that in the previous litigation, some of the employees appointed in the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau in the finance department and who worked as Section officers, challenged the action of the government when they were not considered for promotion as Under Secretary in the Finance Department. The Government, in reply inter-alia, contended that though integration of the posts in the Central Cash Bureau with regular finance department was taken out, but due to practical difficulties the same was given up and therefore, the Assistant and Section Officers in the Central Cash Bureau continued to work in the said units and that they would be eligible for promotion only in that wing only. According to the Government, the Section officers of the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau attached to the various administrative departments of the secretariat, were allowed to continue on deputation basis in p & AR departments and they were controlled by Finance or the other respective departments. The Government have further contended that Section Officers of the erstwhile CCB Units did not possess experience of working in budget Section and therefore, they were not considered for promotion as Assistant Secretary/Under Secretary. The Government have further contended that Section Officers of the erstwhile CCB Units did not possess experience of working in budget Section and therefore, they were not considered for promotion as Assistant Secretary/Under Secretary. After narrating the history of creation of Central Cash Bureau in finance department and the difference between the Section Officers of various departments, the qualification and experience required for post of Under Secretary in the Finance Department, the Tribunal in their order made in T.A.No.81 of 1989 dated 5.09.1989 ordered as follows: “Therefore on equitable consideration we direct that respondents to create posts equivalent in status to the post of Under Secretary in the Finance Department, in the department where the applicants are working and promote them against those posts with effect from the date of their juniors were promoted in the Finance Department and allow them consequential benefits. The application is allowed on the above terms. Such orders will be passed within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order or a copy thereof. No costs. Before we part with this application, we would like to suggest for consideration of the respondents two alternatives in regard to these persons of the erstwhile CCB working in the bill section of the various administrative departments of the Secretariat. 1) in view of the fact that the recruitment of Junior Assistants is on par with the recruitment of Finance Department from 1974 as evidenced by G.O.Mo.1131, Finance date 18. 1974. a full integration of the services of the staff of the bills section and the regular Finance Department may be desirable and the respondents will do well to consider the same. 2) In the alternative it is for the respondents to consider whether the staff working in bills section of the various Administrative Departments of the Secretariat can be brought under the Treasuries and Accounts Service under the control of the Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts. The respondents may examine these suggestions and take a decision in order to avoid difficulties for the respondents as well as frustration among the staff working in the Bills Section in the various Administrative Department of the Secretariat.” The above decision of the Tribunal was taken on appeal by the Government to the Supreme Court in C.A.No.126 of 1990. The respondents may examine these suggestions and take a decision in order to avoid difficulties for the respondents as well as frustration among the staff working in the Bills Section in the various Administrative Department of the Secretariat.” The above decision of the Tribunal was taken on appeal by the Government to the Supreme Court in C.A.No.126 of 1990. while confirming the orders of the Tribunal, the Apex court observed as follows: “That being the consequential position, the respondents’ right to have their cases considered for promotion in the Secretariat service cannot be denied. The Tribunal having reached this conclusion, which in our opinion rightly went a step further in stating that the respondents cannot be considered for promotion in the Finance Department since they do not have requisite experience in budgeting. The Tribunal directed the Government to create other equivalent posts for their promotion. It seems to us, if the state does not want to promote the respondents, the appropriate orders would be to direct the Government to upgrade the posts held by the respondents equivalent to the promotional posts for which they would be legitimately entitled to from date on which their respective juniors were so promoted from time to time. We order accordingly.” Before parting with the case, the Supreme Court further went on to state that: “We are told that respondents belonging to a dying cadre. Two of them have already retired. The remaining one has got service only up to the end of May this year. This order would therefore meet the ends of justice. We further direct that upon upgrading the posts held by them, they should be paid all consequential monetary benefits flowing there from. We direct that the order shall be given effect to within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly modified and the appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.” It is evident from the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.376 Finance (OP.I)Department date 21.05.1991 that the Government have deiced to revise the scales of pay of three individuals, who were working as Section Officer (Bills) belonging to erstwhile Central Cash Bureau, with that of the scales of pay of Under-Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Government. The Government further ordered as follows: “The revision of the scales of pay are be personal to them and co-terminus with the services of these three individuals only so the date of their vacating these posts for whatever reason (two of them have already retired from service) these posts would automatically revert to their original status. They cannot be considered for promotion in the Finance Department since they do not have requisite experience in budgeting. Under these circumstances there will not be any change whatsoever in their duties and responsibilities, on upgrading the scales of pay of the posts of Section Officer (Bills)held by them. Therefore there is no need to re-designate these posts during the periods they draw pay in the revised scales. 6. The individuals shall be eligible to have their pay refixed and regulated with reference to the above orders and to draw arrears of consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom in full. The expenditure shall be debited to the relevant salary heads of accounts in the respective department.” 13. It is evident from G.O.Ms.No.435, Finance (OP.I). Department dated 25.05.1994. that the Government have fixed the pay of inter-se-seniority of staff of erstwhile Central Cash Bureau and the staff of regular Finance Department, based on a decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3771 of 1991 dated 12.05.1992, where the Tribunal, inter-alia held as follows: “When two different cadres are integrated there has to be a specific decision in regard to the manner in which seniority should be fixed for the combined category. In this case, as pointed out in the reply affidavit, the staff in Central Cash Bureau were on different and lower scales of pay applicable to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, before the pay scales were brought on par with the Secretariat and their promotions were on different pattern and were more accelerate than in the case of the Secretariat staff of the Finance Department. Obviously, the combined seniority could not be on the basis of date of promotion as Superintendent which was on a lower pay scale in the first instance, even if subsequently the scale has been upgraded. When the scales were upgraded there were suitable reservations that they will not be a part of the Finance Department’s cadre, but be kept as a separate cadre. When the scales were upgraded there were suitable reservations that they will not be a part of the Finance Department’s cadre, but be kept as a separate cadre. Therefore, the principle that they should be eligible for promotion with reference to their seniority has to be made applicable to all the staff of the Central cash Bureau following their integration with the Finance Department. The Hon’ ble Tribunal on equitable consideration directed that “for the purpose of inter-se-seniority taking note of the different promotion prospects in the two wings, should be on the basis of the seniority with reference to the date of entry in the department, in the category in which they were recruited in the first instance. Considering that the staff of the Central Cash Bureau had been recruited on lower scales of pay, following the revision of their pay scales they should not be allowed to have an advantage over the cadre of the Finance Department, for which as stated in the reply affidavit, higher qualifications are prescribed and higher pay scales were also prescribed before integration”. The Tribunal further ordered as follows:-“Subject to seniority being fixed on this basis, the benefit as directed by the Supreme Court should be made available to the staff of the Central Cash Bureau, which is a dying cadre, since after 1974, there has been no separate recruitment to the Central Cash Bureau and the cadre had been integrated at the entry point. The Government should take action on the above lines in respect of all the staff of the central Cash Bureau without their having seek the directions of the court in each case”. 14. While fixing up the inter-se-seniority of the staff of erstwhile central cash Bureau and the staff of regular Finance Department, the Government, after taking note of the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3771 of 1991 dated 15. 1992 and the orders of the Supreme Court made in C.A.No.126 of 1990 and the Rule 35 (aa) of the General Rule for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, have decided to fix the inter-se-seniority of the staff of the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau and the staff of the regular Finance Department with reference to their date of entry in Finance Department in the category to which both staff of Central Cash Bureau as well as Finance were recruited. At the first instance in paragraph 5 of the said Government Order, the Government directed that the inter-se-seniority ordered above was only for the purpose of giving monetary benefits to the staff of the Central Cash Bureau on par with the regular staff of the Finance Department by upgrading the posts held by the staff of the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau equivalent to the promotional posts of Staff of Finance Department from the date on which their receptive juniors were promoted from time to time. It is further evident from G.O.Ms.No.767 Finance (OP.I) Department dated 29. 1995 that, certain cash officers working in Labour and Employment (Bills) Department Housing and Urban Development (Bills) Department were upgraded to the post of Senior Cash Officers, in the grade of Deputy Secretary to the Government and that they were also paid Special Scales of pay and allowed to discharge the work, as Section Officers (Bills) of Labour and Employment (Bills) Department, Housing and Urban Development (Bills) Department respectively. .15. Sequence of events from 1989, makes it clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Tribunal have considered that the employees of the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau which a was a dying category at the relevant period, ought not to have been deprived of their chances of further promotion, on the ground of abolition of the Central Cash Bureau. That is why, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.No. 126 of 1990 was pleased to modify the directions of the Tribunal, by stating that if the state Government does not want to promote the respondents, then appropriate orders should be issued to Upgrade the post held by the respondents therein, equivalent to the promotional posts, for which they would be legitimately entitled to from the date on which their respective juniors were so promoted from time to time. 16. The direction of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3771 of 1991 dated 12.05.1992 are to the effect that the benefits, as directed by the Supreme Court should be made available to the staff of the Central Cash Bureau, which was a dying cadre, since after 1974, there was no separate recruitment to the Central Cash Bureau and that the cadre had been integrated at the entry point. The Tribunal had further directed that the Government should take action on the above lines, in respect of all the staff of the Central Cash Bureau, without seeking further directions of the court in each Thus the Government have also fixed inter- se- seniority of the staff of erstwhile Central Cash Bureau and the staff of regular finance department and issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.435 Finance (OP.I) Department, dated 25.05.1994. 17. Coming to the facts of present case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Record clerk in the erstwhile Cash Clerk, Central /cash Bureau of the Finance Department on 210. 1960. He was subsequently promoted as cash clerk on 110. 1982, by relaxing the educational qualification, that is SSLC. As per the contention in the counter affidavit, Record Clerks having SSLC qualification with five years experience are entitled for promotion as Assistant in regular Finance Department. The objection of the government in the present writ petitions is that the petitioner was not appointed as Record Clerk in regular Finance Department and he does not possess SSLC qualification and therefore not eligible for promotion as Assistant in regular finance. .18. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the Supreme Court, in its order has made it clear in C.A.No.126 of1990 dated 10.04.1991, that in the case of Mr. M. Senthil and two others, if the State does not want to promote them, appropriate orders should be issued by the Government to upgrade the posts held by the respondents therein, equivalent to the promotional posts, for which they would be legitimately entitled, them the date on which their respective juniors were so promoted from time to time. Therefore, in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the Government have decided to fix the inter-se-seniority of the staff of the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau and the staff of regular finance Department with reference to their date of to their date of entry in Finance Department in the category to whom both the staff of Central Cash Bureau as well as Finance were recruited at the first instance. In such an event, the petitioners who was recruited as Record Clerk in the year 1960 is entitled to have his seniority from that year onwards, as if he was continuing in the Finance Department. In such an event, the petitioners who was recruited as Record Clerk in the year 1960 is entitled to have his seniority from that year onwards, as if he was continuing in the Finance Department. If that date is taken into consideration, as the date of entry in secretariat service, then by virtue of his continuous service of more then five years as Record Clerk and the subsequent promotion of the petitioner as Cash Clerk in Central Cash Bureau, his post ought to have been upgraded to the post equivalent to the promotional post, for which, he would have been legitimately entitled from the date on which juniors in the Finance Department were so promoted and therefore, the contention of the respondents that the posts of Cash Clerk and the Assistant are different cannot be countenanced in view of the direction of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.3771 of 1991 dated 15. 1992 and the decision of the Supreme Court in C.A.No.126 of 1990 dated of 10.04.1991. Had the petitioner been appointed in regular Finance Department as Record Clerk, he would have gained his promotion as Assistant. The petitioner has got educational qualification relaxed only in the year 1983, after nearly 17 years of his service as Record Clerk in the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau. Therefore, by applying the decision of the supreme Court as well as the Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled to up-gradation i.e. to the post of junior Assistant (now re-designated as Assistant) and for further promotions from time to time, from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted in regular Finance Department. 19. In the light of the above, the respondents are directed consider the case of the petitioner for up- gradation of his service, to which he is eligible from 1983 onwards and consequently pay the monetary and other benefits, as drawn in the case of other staff of the erstwhile Central Cash Bureau. The said exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.