JUDGMENT :- 1. The present Writ Petitions are directed against the order dated 27.9.2000, passed by the second respondent viz. the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, in and by which, the second respondent has made recommendation to reconsider the granting of the benefits of selection grade and special grade to the petitioners that happened on 1.10.1978 and 24.4.1987 respectively. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners M.S.Subramanian and V.Kolandaisamy were originally appointed on 8.4.1962 and 9.4.1963 as surviellance field workers in the National Malaria Eradication Programmes and after two years, they were promoted as Surviellance Inspector on 6.3.1964. Thereafter, on completion of six years in the post of Surveillance inspector, the petitioners and 14 others were transferred and posted as Health Inspectors. In the meanwhile, the respondents also decided to regularise the service of the petitioners with effect from 6.3.1972 on the basis of appointment orders, similar to the one dated 5.9.1979 passed in favour of petitioners and other similarly placed persons likewise of the petitioners. 3. When the matter stands above, the petitioners had the grievance that the respondents have not considered the period of service rendered by them as surveillance field workers and Surveillance Inspectors for regularization and also for monetary benefit. In the meanwhile, the second respondent initiated proceedings on 19.2.1992 based on G.O.Ms.No.1425 Health and Family Welfare dated 27.7.1987 and also on the basis of the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.421 of 1989. Finally, a recommendation was also made to the first respondent to issue suitable clarification for retrospective regularization of the services of the petitioners in the post of Surveillance Inspector from 1.7.1966. On that basis, the second respondent, in the light of the proceedings dated 4.4.1995 regularised the services of the petitioners in the post of Surveillance Inspector from 1.7.1966. Again by another proceedings dated 14.2.1996, the petitioners' probation was also declared to have been completed on the afternoon of 5.7.1968. Consequently, the arrears of pay was also given from 29.7.1987. 4. On that basis, the second respondent, in the light of the proceedings dated 4.4.1995 regularised the services of the petitioners in the post of Surveillance Inspector from 1.7.1966. Again by another proceedings dated 14.2.1996, the petitioners' probation was also declared to have been completed on the afternoon of 5.7.1968. Consequently, the arrears of pay was also given from 29.7.1987. 4. Further, elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the declaration of the probation of the petitioners on 14.2.1996, the second respondent has also recommended the case of the petitioners for giving the benefit of selection grade from 1.10.1978 and thereafter once again for Special Grade on completion of 20 years as service from the date of declaration of probation on 14.2.1996. The petitioners were also given the benefit of Special Grade on 24.4.1987. From the date of grant of benefit of selection grade on 1.10.1978, the petitioners were again allowed to work for another 12 years and when they got about only 3 days to retire, on 27.9.2000, the second respondent has made a proposal to first respondent to recall the order giving the benefit of selection grade and special grade on the ground that the petitioners were granted selection grade on 1.10.1978 and subsequently special grade on 1.10.1988 when they have not having the requisite qualifications. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by assailing that portion of the order impugned, submitted that right from the date of regularization of the petitioners in the post of surveillance Inspector as early as on 1.7.1966, the respondents, on more than three occasions considered the service records of the petitioners. Even on 6.7.1982 before regularization of services of the petitioners, they considered the case of the petitioners by regularizing the service records and thereafter the service of petitioners on 6.3.1972. Subsequently thereafter, again the probation of the petitioners were declared on 14.2.1996 and after declaration of probation of the petitioners, the respondents have chosen to confer the benefits of selection grade of the petitioners on 1.10.1978 when they have satisfied with the service of the petitioners that they have completed the requisite number of years of service for selection grade on 1.10.1978 and their probation was also declared on 14.2.1996. Having taken subjective satisfaction that the petitioners have completed service of 10 years from the date of selection grade, they were certified for special grade on 1.10.1988. 5. The impugned order which has been passed just only three days before the retirement of the petitioners, is unjustified and the same is not supported with any reasons and on this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for setting aside the impugned proposal of the second respondent. Subsequently, on the basis of proposal, recovery was also made. Now, the petitioners on 30.9.2000 were also retired. He further submits that since the petitioners at no point of time, misrepresented before the respondents either for grant of selection grade or special grade, recovery made is unsustainable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Opposing the above prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, has submitted that when the second respondent has recommended by sending proposal for recalling the earlier benefits of selection grade and special grade to the petitioners, as they do not possess the qualified service, hence the said order cannot be questioned in view of the fact that on the basis of proposal passed by the second respondent, the respondents already determined to recover the amount to which the petitioners are not entitled. 7. No counter has been filed. The above submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader opposing the prayer of the petitioners, appears to be unreasonable and unjustifiable for more than one reason. A mere reading of the impugned order does not mention that on what basis the second respondent has mentioned that the petitioners failed to possess the qualified service for grant of selection grade and special grade on 1.10.1978 and 1.10.1988 respectively when all along the respondents have regularized the services of the petitioners from the post of Surveillance Inspector wayback on 1.7.1966 and subsequently their service records were considered for promotion to Health Inspector on 6.3.1972 by applying their mind. 8. Therefore, on two occasions, when the services of the petitioners were regularized and even at the third stage, before the petitioners' probation was declared, it was not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have made any wrong representation representing wrong case to the detriment for regularizing the services of the petitioners at any point of time. 8. Therefore, on two occasions, when the services of the petitioners were regularized and even at the third stage, before the petitioners' probation was declared, it was not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have made any wrong representation representing wrong case to the detriment for regularizing the services of the petitioners at any point of time. Therefore, when the respondents themselves have come forward to declare the probation of the petitioners in the post of Health Inspector on 14.2.1996 and granted selection grade to them on 1.10.1978, that too, after ten years from the date of declaration of their probation and granted special grade to the petitioners on 1.10.1988, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside. Having allowed the petitioners to enjoy the increments for about 20 years, passing proposal to recover these increments just 3 days to go for retirement is unjustified and unacceptable. 9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the impugned order passed by the second respondent. 10. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 27.9.2000 passed by the second respondent is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to get back the amount already recovered from them by the respondents. 11. With the above observation, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.