Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was a Senior Clerk before he was promoted as Assistant Secretary on 01.07.2007. On his promotion as Assistant Secretary, his pay was fixed by the third respondent by an order dated 25.06.2007 in the scale of 3495-100-3995-110-4765-125-5390-140-6090-155-7330-170-7840-185-8395 in accordance with G.O.131, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 04.06.1999. As per the aforesaid G.O.131, he was paid Rs.8,902/- as his total salary by the aforesaid order dated 25.06.2007 of the third respondent. After completion of one year, he was granted annual increment and he got Rs.9,336/- as on 01.07.2008. 2. However, a settlement under section 18(1) of the I.D. Act was entered into between five of the employees of the third respondent society and the third respondent. According to him, his salary was fixed based on the said settlement. It is stated that the settlement is disadvantageous to him. Hence, he filed W.P.No.26660 of 2008 praying to forebear the respondents from interfering with the salary fixed to him in the post of Assistant Secretary in terms of G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 04.06.1999. This Court, on 11.11.2008, passed an order in W.P.No.26660 of 2008 directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2008 and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. 3. The first respondent passed an order dated 15.12.2008 stating that the petitioner is entitled to salary only as per the settlement under section 18(1) of the I.D.Act entered into between five of the employees of the third respondent society and the third respondent. 4. The petitioner has now come with the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2008 of the first respondent and to continue to give him salary as per G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 04.06.1999. 5. Notice of motion was ordered. 6. Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the first and second respondents and Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the third respondent. The third respondent filed counter affidavit. 7. 5. Notice of motion was ordered. 6. Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the first and second respondents and Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the third respondent. The third respondent filed counter affidavit. 7. It is not in dispute that the settlement dated 01.08.2008 was signed by the five of the employees of the third respondent society and the third respondent under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act and the petitioner is not one among the five employees. Hence, the settlement is not binding on him. It is stated by the petitioner that his salary was reduced pursuant to the settlement. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the settlement was gave him more benefits. 9. However, I am not going into those controversies. Since, the settlement is under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act, which will cover only parties to the settlement. As stated above, admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the settlement. Hence, the settlement is not binding on him. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the third respondent is directed to pay the salary which he is entitled to under G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 04.06.1999. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.