Judgment :- 1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to promote the petitioner as Grade I Malayalam Pandit from 01.04.1975 based on the G.O.Ms.469, Education Department, dated 22.03.1975 whereby concession given to other languages is extended to Malayalam Pandits and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner all benefits taking into account the service of the petitioner from 01.04.1975. 3. The petitioner, who was appointed as Malayalam Pandit Grade I with effect from 05.10.1970 at the Government High School, Erumad, Konnachal Post, Nilgris District. While in service, on 12.04.1967 on the last working day of the academic year, after 6 years of service, the petitioner was ousted from service for the reason that the Kerala University vidwan title was not equivalent to the Madras University title. The petitioner had brought the same to the notice of the authority and the G.O.Ms.No.1214, Public (Service-C) Department, dated 27.07.1963 was passed, whereby it was clarified that the Kerala University title is equivalent to the corresponding Madras University title, then the petitioner was reappointed on 01.06.1976 without any break in service and she was also given the leave salary. It is seen that G.O.Ms.No.2650, Education Department, dated 27.12.1977 was issued clarifying the position that the Kerala University vidwan title was equivalent to the corresponding title of the Madras University for the appointment of Malayalam Pandit. Then as per G.O.Ms.No.823, Education Department, dated 18.06.1990, the services of the petitioner as Grade II Malayalam Pandit was ordered to be regularised with effect from 05.10.1970, the date of her first appointment and accordingly, by Proceeding Mu.Mu.No.19510/C32/90, dated 23.02.1991, the Joint Director of School Educational (Personal) Madras regularised the services as Grade II Malayalam Pandit Gr.I for all purposes. 4. The petitioner has further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.1214, Public (Service-C) Department, dated 27.07.1963, the qualifications which were prescribed and the degree or diploma obtained from other State / University has been mentioned in order to show the same, equivalent to the Madras University and accordingly, the petitioner had been qualified for the post of Grade I Malayalam Pandit as on the date of her first appointment on 05.10.1970. As per G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 17.01.1974, the post of such Grade I and Grade II Pandits were merged. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, dated 22.03.1975, the categories of Grade I and Grade II Pandits of other languages were also merged and all qualified Grade I and Grade II teachers were appointed as Grade I Teachers with effect from 01.04.1975. The petitioner has further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, dated 22.03.1975, all qualified teachers of Grade II were appointed to Grade I post except the petitioner, though she was qualified and eligible for Grade I post from her date of appointment. The petitioner had made several representations to the Government, based on G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, dated 22.03.1975. However, in the reply to her representations, she was informed that her services have been regularised on 27.12.1977, though G.O.Ms.No.2650, Education Department, dated 27.12.1977 is only a clarification and as per G.O.Ms.No.1214, Public (Services-C) Department, dated 27.07.1963, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Grade I Malayalam Pandit from the date of her appointment itself, i.e., on 05.10.1970. 5. The petitioner had sent several representations to the respondents to promote her service from 01.04.1975 as Grade I Malayalam Pandit. The petitioner made written representation to the respondents for her services to be converted as Grade I from 05.10.1970, that was recommended by the respondents 2 and 3 as early as 1991, but no orders were passed, hence, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition. 6. The petitioner has further stated that she was selected and given Dr.Radhakrishnan Award for the year 1999-2000 by the Government of Tamil Nadu and she retired from service on 30.09.2001, then she was re-employed up to April 2002. However, as per order, dated 01.07.2004, through G.O.(2D).No.42, School education (M2) Department, dated 01.07.2004, the first respondent passed an order, stating that the petitioners services are given effect to as Grade I Malayalam Pandit on 01.01.1978, from the date on which she was promoted a Grade I Malayalam Pandit and she was entitled to all monetary benefits. 7. Mrs.R.Swarnalatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order, dated 01.07.2004 passed in G.O(2D) No.42, School Education (M2) Department by the first respondent regularising the service of the petitioner only from 01.01.1978, granting monetary benefits without any acceptable reason is not legally sustainable. 8. 7. Mrs.R.Swarnalatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order, dated 01.07.2004 passed in G.O(2D) No.42, School Education (M2) Department by the first respondent regularising the service of the petitioner only from 01.01.1978, granting monetary benefits without any acceptable reason is not legally sustainable. 8. The petitioner submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, dated 22.03.1975, the petitioners services as Grade I shall be regularised with all monetary benefits and that she was entitled to be promoted as Grade I Malayalam Pandit with effect from 01.04.1975, based on G.O.Ms.No.469 referred to above. 9. Per contra, the respondents have stated in their counter that in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, dated 22.03.1975, the petitioner, Tmt.G.Vijayammal, Grade I Malayam Pandit got regular conversion as a Grade I Malayalam Pandit with effect from 01.01.1978 as per proceeding in R.Dis.No.113904/C21/79, dated 19.07.1980 of the Joint Director (Personal), Chennai-6, after the post was upgraded as Malayalam Pandit Grade I with effect from 01.01.1978. She was regularised with effect from the said date, as per G.O.(2D) No.42, School Education (M2) Department, dated 01.07.2004, but the petitioner claims that she could have been regularised from 01.04.1975 on the date of which Grade II Malayalam Pandits who have completed 10 years of service in their post were promoted as Grade I Malayalam Pandits. According to the respondents, the petitioner as Gr.II Malayalam Pandit has not completed 10 years of service in the said post as on 01.04.1975, since her service was regularised only on 01.01.1978, therefore, the petitioners request to regularise her service as Grade I Malayalam Pandit from 01.04.1975 was rejected by the Government by the letter, dated 02.11.2004. 10. As per G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, dated 22.03.1975, all pandits and munshis grade II of the languages other than Tamil have been included under part A of the curriculum an those who are qualified to be appointed as pandits and munshis grade I, but are not acting as pandits and mushis grade II for want of vacancy as on 01.04.1975 would be appointed to grade I posts with effect from 01.04.1975 Those who have completed 10 years of service after 01.04.1975 also be eligible for Grade I, from the date on which they completed 10 years of service, provided they possess the necessary training qualification. The said G.O reads at paragraph number 3 as follows : All Pandits and Munshis Grade II of the languages other than Tamil included under part A of the curriculum who have not obtained the minimum general educational qualifications for appointment as Pandits and Munshis grade I but who have completed 10 years of service as on 1.4.75 will be appointed as Pandits and Munshis grade I with effect from 1.4.75. Those who complete 10 years of service after 1.4.75 till also be eligible for Grade I from the date on which they completed 10 years of service provided they possess the necessary training qualifications." 11. It is not in dispute that the Joint Director of School Education, by order, dated 19.07.1980 passed his order in R.Dis.No.113904 C21/79, in pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, dated 22.06.1975, however, the petitioner, Tmt.G.Vijayamma, Gr.II was promoted as Malayalam Pandit by conversion as Grade I Malayalam Pandit only with effect from 01.01.1978. It was also made clear by the said proceeding that the petitioner would be eligible to draw her pay admissible to Grade I, Malayalam with effect from 01.01.1978 and the headmaster was requested to take necessary action to draw and disburse the arrears of salary due and payable to the petitioner. 12. G.O.Ms.No.823, Education Department, dated 18.06.1990 available in the typed set reads as follows: "2. Tmt.G.Vijayamma in her representation second read above, has stated that general orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.1214, Public (Ser.) dated 27.07.1963 amending the General Rules to the extend that in cases where the special rules prescribed a degree or diploma as a qualification, then a degree or diploma granted by any of the Universities or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grant mentioned in the Schedule II, shall be recognised as the qualification. In the above schedule the Kerala University also finds a place. She has, therefore, represented that she is fully qualified as per the above orders at the time of her first appointment and hence, her services in the category of Malayalam Pandit Grade II may be regularised with effect from the date of her first appointment." 13. In Food Corpn. In the above schedule the Kerala University also finds a place. She has, therefore, represented that she is fully qualified as per the above orders at the time of her first appointment and hence, her services in the category of Malayalam Pandit Grade II may be regularised with effect from the date of her first appointment." 13. In Food Corpn. of India vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly, reported in 2009 (7) SCC 734 , the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows : “17...Only because, according to the Corporation, they were treated differently, in our opinion, by itself cannot be a ground not to apply the rules applicable to the employees of Food Corporation of India on their absorption in the services of Food Corporation of India only because they have been taken from the different sources. Different treatments meted out to the respondents vis-a-vis the Central Government employees although drawn from separate cadre, for the purpose of grant of benefit to one class only, would, in our opinion, amount to discrimination.” In the aforesaid decision, it has been categorically held that granting of benefits to one set of employees and denial to other set of employees, when both sets are governed by same rules / orders regarding advance increment, as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. In S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1077 , the Honble Apex Court has held that the retired employee is entitled to interest, if the retirement benefits are given to him after four years. Even in absence of specific service rules, he can claim interest by relying on Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. 15. In Ajit Singh (II) vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1999 (7) SCC 209 , the Honble Supreme Court has held that Article 14 and Article 16 (1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense, “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. 16. They deal with individual rights of the person. Clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense, “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. 16. In the light of the decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court, it has been made clear that it is paramount on the part of the authorities to maintain equality before law and equal protection of law and there should be no discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein was appointed on 05.10.1970 as Malayalam Pandit Grade II in the Government High School, Erumad, Konnachal Post, Nilgiris. Therefore, as per the aforesaid Government Order, it is made clear that she was fully qualified and eligible to hold the post as Malayalam Pandit Grade I, however, for want of vacancy, she was holding the post of Malayalam Pandit Grade II. As per G.O.Ms.No.469, Education Department, the petitioner who was fully qualified to hold the post as Malayalam Pandit Grade I, holding the post as Grade II for want of vacancy was entitled to all the benefits as Malayalam Pandit Grade I with effect from 01.04.1975. The subsequent portion of the G.O is applicable to any other person, who is not qualified but having 10 years of service and the required training. It has been made clear by the G.Os referred to above that the petitioner, who was fully qualified but held the post as Grade II Malayalam Pandit for want of vacancy is entitled to Grade I status with effect from 01.04.1975. 18. As the petitioner was eligible to be appointed to the Grade I post with effect from 01.04.1975, as per the G.O, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits that are available as per the proceedings of the Director of School Education, dated 24.03.1975. However, it is seen that the petitioner was given the benefit as Malayalam Pandit Grade I only with effect from 01.01.1978, though she was entitled to claim such right, as per the aforesaid proceedings, dated 24.03.1975. 19. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents raise no tenable objection, since the aforesaid facts are supported by Government Orders and other proceedings. 20. 19. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents raise no tenable objection, since the aforesaid facts are supported by Government Orders and other proceedings. 20. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has established her claim and accordingly, the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for. 21. In the result, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to comply with the direction given in the writ petition, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by providing all monetary benefits with effect from 01.04.1975. No order as to costs.