Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener on 18.06.1982. Later, he was appointed as Tailoring Inspector Grade – II on 21.10.1985. The qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Tailoring Inspector Grade–II under the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Approved Schools Subordinate Service is as follows: "(i) A pass in the Government Technical Examination in Tailoring; (ii) Practical experience for a period of not less than two years." 2. The petitioner possessed the academic qualification as prescribed in the Rules. However, he did not possess the practical experience. He rendered ten years of service in the post of Tailoring Inspector Grade – II. Taking into account the long service rendered as Tailoring Instructor Grade - II, the first respondent issued an order in G.O. (2D).No.16, Social Welfare and N.M.P. Department, dated 09.05.1995, regularising the services of the petitioner, on completion of two years of service as Tailoring Instructor. Accordingly, the petitioner was regularised in service with effect from 21.10.1987. But the G.O., granted monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of the G.O. Consequential orders were passed by the first respondent vide order dated 28.10.1999 and by the second respondent vide order dated 29.11.1999. 3. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3734 of 2000 (W.P.No.40911 of 2006) praying to quash that portion of the G.O., and the other consequential orders, in so far as denying monetary benefits from the date of regularisation and for a direction to pay all benefits from the date of regularisation. 4. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 5. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener on 18.06.1982. Later, he was appointed as Tailoring Instructor Grade–II with effect from 21.10.1985. It is true that at the time of appointment of Tailoring Instructor, he did not possess the practical experience for a period of two years. Taking into account his service rendered for ten years from 1985 to 1995, the first respondent issued an order in G.O.(2D)No.16, Social Welfare and N.M.P. Department, dated 09.05.1995, regularising the services of the petitioner. The relevant passage from the said G.O., is extracted hereunder: "..... Thiru. M. Dhanasekaran and Thiru. K. Arumugam did not acquire the practical experience at the time of their appointment. The relevant passage from the said G.O., is extracted hereunder: "..... Thiru. M. Dhanasekaran and Thiru. K. Arumugam did not acquire the practical experience at the time of their appointment. It is therefore considered that the period of service in the Department may be counted for the purpose of practical experience and the services of the Instructors who have not acquired the practical experience as per rules may be regularised only after completion of the required period of service." 7. After completion of two years service as Tailoring Instructor, the services of the petitioner was regularised and that he was not regularised in the post of Tailoring Instructor from the date of his initial appointment. Thus, his services were regularised only from 21.10.1987. But the G.O., denied monetary benefits from 21.10.1987 to 09.05.1995 i.e. the date of issuance of G.O., and no reason was given for denying monetary benefits for the period from 21.10.1987 to 09.05.1995. In this regard, para 5 of the said G.O., is extracted hereunder: 8. In the said G.O., apart from the petitioner, others were also regularised. In the case of others, the Government relaxed the Rules relating to qualification. But in the case of petitioner, no relaxation took place. In any event, no reason was given for denying monetary benefits from the date of regularisation. Once regularization is given, the consequence would be automatic, unless there exists weighty reasons for denying benefit of regularisation. Therefore, in my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded that the first respondent was not justified in denying monetary benefits from the date of regularisation and giving monetary benefits only from the date of issue of G.O. As stated above, no reason was given in the impugned G.O., for denying monetary benefits from the date of regularisation. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has correctly relied on the decision of this Court in G.BOOPATHY AND OTHERS VS. THE COMMISSIONER, MILK PRODUCTION AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS in W.P.No.29590 of 2005 (decided on 21.04.2009) and also the judgment of this Court in R.MOHAN VS. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER FOR REVENUE ADMINISTRATION reported in 2006 Writ L.R. 480. Para 12 of the judgment in W.P.No.29590 of 2005 is extracted hereunder: "12. THE COMMISSIONER, MILK PRODUCTION AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS in W.P.No.29590 of 2005 (decided on 21.04.2009) and also the judgment of this Court in R.MOHAN VS. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER FOR REVENUE ADMINISTRATION reported in 2006 Writ L.R. 480. Para 12 of the judgment in W.P.No.29590 of 2005 is extracted hereunder: "12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the portion of the G.O. at para 5 "however the benefit of regularisation should be given from the date of issue of this order" is quashed and the petitioners are also entitled to get consequential benefits from the date of their appointment. The second respondent is directed to pay the consequential benefits on account of regularisation of the services of the petitioners from the date of appointment, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 10. The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE SALEM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED VS. G.BOOPATHY AND OTHERS in W.A.No.1641 of 2009 (decided on 27.11.2009). SLP preferred by the Government against the order of the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed by the Honourable Apex Court on 08.03.2010. 11. In the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 Writ L.R. 480, the Government employee was appointed irregularly and his irregular appointment was ratified "5. They will be eligible for monetary benefit from the date of issue of this order." subsequently. In those circumstances, in para 5 of the judgment, this Court held as follows: "5.I have heard the learned counsel on either side. The decision in W.P.No.6605 of 1988 and the Supreme Court decision cited supra squarely apply to the facts of this case. Petitioner having been appointed in the year 1973, assuming his appointment is irregular, following the proposition laid down in the Supreme Court in the above cited decision, I hold that in this case only a formal ratification is required, but instead, the reversion order now made is totally unwarranted. The irregular appointment, if is ratified, will definitely confer a right on the petitioner to get his appointment ratified from the date of initial appointment. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside." 12. The irregular appointment, if is ratified, will definitely confer a right on the petitioner to get his appointment ratified from the date of initial appointment. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside." 12. In view of the aforesaid judgments and also in view of the fact that the petitioner was regularised in service with effect from 21.10.1987, there is no reason to deprive the monetary benefit from 21.10.1987. Accordingly, the impugned orders, in so far as depriving the monetary benefit from the date of regularization, are quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to pay monetary benefits from the date of regularisation of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.