Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows: The petitioner had been appointed, as an Electrician Grade-II, on 24.1.1986. At the time of his appointment, the qualification necessary for such appointment was plus two with I.T.I training. Later, the petitioner had been promoted as Electrician Grade-I, in the year, 2001. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu had introduced the IV Pay Commission recommendations, with effect from 1.10.1984, prescribing various pay scales for the government servants. As there were some pay anamolies the government had appointed an One Man Commission. The Commission had given a recommendation, for the revision of pay scales, for certain categories of posts such as Fitter, Welder and Electrician. Accepting the recommendation, the Government had passed an order, in G.O.Ms.No.762, Finance Department, dated 20.8.1986. In the said Government Order, the pay scales had been revised on the basis of the qualification prescribed for I.T.I course. The pay scale of ordinary grade was fixed at Rs.610-1075 (I.T.I Course, with S.S.L.C. Pass) and at Rs.555-970 (I.T.I Course and S.S.L.C Failed). In the said Government Order the revised qualifications, for all Trade Posts, have been indicated as Group-I (S.S.L.C. Passed and I.T.I Certificate) and Group-II (S.S.L.C Failed and I.T.I. Certificate). The Group-I posts, include Mechanic and Electrician posts, with the scale of pay of Rs.610-1075. The posts of Turner, Machinist and Fitter are included in the Group-II posts, with the scale of pay of Rs.555-970. Therefore, the Government Order had made it clear that the post of Electrician comes under Group-I. 3. It has been further stated that in the Government Order some of the Trade Posts had been included in Group-II though they require a pass in S.S.L.C, as the minimum qualification. Therefore, some of the aggrieved persons had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing an original application, in O.A.No.506 of 1989, praying that they should be fitted in Group-I category and for appropriate revision in their pay scales. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had allowed the original application, by its order, dated 4.10.1994. Therefore, some of the aggrieved persons had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing an original application, in O.A.No.506 of 1989, praying that they should be fitted in Group-I category and for appropriate revision in their pay scales. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had allowed the original application, by its order, dated 4.10.1994. The order of the Tribunal had been implemented by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.273, Finance Department, dated 6.4.1995, by revising the scale of pay of Fitter, Turner and Machinist, notionally, with effect from 1.10.1984, as per the recommendations of the IV Pay Commission. 4. After the introduction of the V pay Commission, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance Department, dated 24.8.1992, on the basis of the representations made by the various associations to revise the scales of pay of certain categories of employees. However, as there were certain anomalies in the scales of pay the Government Order had been passed granting personal pay, at 5% of the basic pay, to all categories of staff, for the scales of pay mentioned therein. The benefit to be given to the employees had been calculated, as on 1.8.1992. However, since there was some dispute in fixing the cut off date, an original application, in O.A.No.474 of 1993, had been filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to extend the benefit of 5% personal pay for those who have been appointed/promoted prior to 27.6.1989. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 17.9.1993, had allowed the original application. 5. Based on the order passed by the Tribunal, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.873, Finance Department, dated 27.12.1993, extending the benefit of 5% personal pay to all the employees, who had actually moved from pre-revised scale of pay mentioned therein and who had been appointed/promoted prior to 27.6.1989. It has also been submitted that the benefit of 5% personal pay had also been extended after the introduction of the VI Pay Commission, in G.O.Ms.No.497, Finance Department, dated 15.9.1998. After the said Government Order some queries had been raised and the Government had also issued certain clarifications. It has also been submitted that for the post of Electrician, the pay was fixed by G.O.Ms.No.762, Finance Department, dated 20.8.1986, at Rs.610-1075. The scale of pay had also been mentioned in the Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance Department, dated 24.8.1992, and G.O.Ms.No.873, Finance Department, dated 27.12.1993, in respect of granting 5% personal pay. It has also been submitted that for the post of Electrician, the pay was fixed by G.O.Ms.No.762, Finance Department, dated 20.8.1986, at Rs.610-1075. The scale of pay had also been mentioned in the Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance Department, dated 24.8.1992, and G.O.Ms.No.873, Finance Department, dated 27.12.1993, in respect of granting 5% personal pay. The said benefit had also been extended, in respect of the recommendations of the VI Pay Commission, in G.O.Ms.No.497, Finance Department, dated 15.9.1998. Since, the pay scale fixed for the post of Electrician is included in the said Government orders, the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of 5% personal pay, by virtue of the clarification issued in the government letter, dated 28.9.1998. 6. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation to the third respondent, to grant him 5% personal pay. The third respondent, by his order, dated 6.2.2004, was pleased to accept the fact that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of 5% personal pay. Accordingly, he had ordered the grant of personal pay to the petitioner. However, the fourth respondent had cancelled the order of the third respondent, by the order, dated 23.8.2004, relying upon the third respondent’s proceedings, dated 19.7.1999. The fourth respondent has no power or authority to cancel the order of the third respondent, being a subordinate officer to the third respondent. Therefore, the order of the fourth respondent, cancelling the benefit granted to the petitioner, by the third respondent, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. The fourth respondent had relied on the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 19.7.1999, to cancel the benefit of personal pay granted to the petitioner, without appreciating the clarifications issued by the third respondent. By the said proceedings, the third respondent has clearly indicated that the Government letter, dated 28.9.1998, has to be followed for the sanctioning of personal pay. As per the Government Letter, dated 28.9.1998, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of 5% personal pay. As such, the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 23.8.2004, and the subsequent order passed by the third respondent, on 18.11.2005, stating that the benefit of 5% personal pay would not be applicable to the posts having the scale of pay of Rs.610-1075, in the revised scale of Rs.1100-1660, are unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. As such, the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 23.8.2004, and the subsequent order passed by the third respondent, on 18.11.2005, stating that the benefit of 5% personal pay would not be applicable to the posts having the scale of pay of Rs.610-1075, in the revised scale of Rs.1100-1660, are unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It has been submitted that the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance Department, dated 24.8.1992, the government had sanctioned 5% personal pay, in respect of four categories of employees in the time scales of pay Pre Revised Scale Revised Scale (1) 475-775 775-1030 (2) 610-1075 950-1500 or 975-1600 (3) 705-1230 1200-2040 (4) 905-1545 1600-2660 9. The pre-revised scale of Electrician Grade-I, which is the post held by the petitioner, is Rs.610-1075 and the corresponding revised scale of pay is Rs.1100-1660. The said category is not eligible for 5% personal pay. The Government letter, dated 28.9.1998, had been misinterpreted by the petitioner. Therefore, orders had to be issued to cancel the earlier orders, which were contrary to the Government Orders. In such circumstances, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, the orders passed by this Court, in W.P.Nos.20156 and 13143 of 2000, dated 10.3.2006 and W.P.Nos.28505 and 28611 of 2006, dated 26.6.2008, wherein, it has been held that, the denial of 5% personal pay to the petitioner’s therein, is arbitrary and unreasonable. It has been held that there was no rationale or basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioners therein. Therefore, it had been held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of 5% personal pay. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is entitled to 5% personal pay, as per the decisions cited supra, as the issues arising for consideration in the present writ petition are similar in nature to those which had been decided by this Court, by its earlier decisions, in the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.20156 and 13143 of 2000, dated 10.3.2006 and W.P.Nos.28505 and 28611 of 2006, dated 26.6.2008, 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Following the decisions of this Court, made in W.P.Nos.20156 and 13143 of 2000, dated 10.3.2006 and W.P.Nos.28505 and 28611 of 2006, dated 26.6.2008, the present writ petition stands allowed. No costs.