ORDER 1. The petitioner joined as a Higher Grade Teacher on 30.3.1960 in the Board Elementary School at Periyakurumbapalayam and he worked in the above school up to 5.6.1960. Thereafter, he served as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Board Elementary School, Reddipalayam from 6.6.1960 to 9.7.1962. He served as Secondary Grade Teacher in Government High School at Alampalayam from 9.7.1962 to 5.2.1965. He also served as Secondary Grade Teacher from 6.2.1965 to 23.1.1973 in Government High School, Guruvareddiyur. Totally, he served for 12 years 9 months and 21 days. 2. While so, he resigned his Post and joined as a Village Karnam on 7.2.1973. The Village Karnam post was abolished by the Tamil Nadu Government on 14.11.1980 and the same was upheld by the Apex Court on 15.4.1982. In these circumstances, the petitioner was reappointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher, Guruvareddiyur by the Chief Educational Officer, Erode in his proceedings dated 30.9.1983 and he joined the duty on 3.10.1983. After rendering more than 12 years of service, he retired on 31.5.1996. He was paid pension for his services from 3.10.1983 to 31.5.1996. Therefore, he claimed to count the past services as a Teacher from 30.3.1960 to 23.1,1973 and the same was rejected by the first respondent by the impugned order dated 10.9.1999 and a consequential order was passed by the second respondent on 10.11.1999. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A. No. 7289 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to quash the aforesaid orders and sought for a direction to count his past services from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973. 3. The respondents have filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of the reply affidavit, it is seen that the Headmaster of the concerned School sent proposals for pension for the periods from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973 and 3.1.1983 to 31.5.1996. However, the Accountant General sanctioned the pension for the period from 3.10.1983 to 31.5.1996. The Accountant General issued proceedings dated 30.7.1996, instructing the Headmaster to get relaxation order from the Government for the period from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973 for authorizing pension for the said period. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner sent an application through proper channel to the first respondent to count his past services from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner sent an application through proper channel to the first respondent to count his past services from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Chief Educational Officer, in his proceedings, dated 5.11.1996, recommended for counting the past services from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973 for pensionary benefits and the same was forwarded to the Director of School Education, Chennai. The Director of School Education also recommended for counting the past services for terminal benefits and the proposal was placed before the first respondent for appropriate Orders. 7. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.9.1999 refusing to grant relaxation under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and refuse to count the past services for the period from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973. In the said order, the only reason given by the first respondent for refusing to grant relaxation under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and to count the past services from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973 is that so many representations of similar nature could come seeking relaxation. In this regard, it is relevant to extract para-2 of the impugned order dated 10.9.1999, is extracted hereunder: 8. In my view, the said reason has no basis and the first respondent has to consider each case independently on merits and to decide as to whether relaxation has to be given in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. In this case, the Chief Educational Officer as well as Director of School Education recommended for counting the past services of the petitioner. The petitioner served as a Teacher for more than 12 years and thereafter, he joined the service as Village Karnam in the Revenue Department under the Tamil Nadu Government. Since the post of Village Karnam was abolished, he was reappointed in the year 1983. In 1984, he was granted selection grade by taking into account the past services. In 1991, he was granted special grade by counting the past services. Therefore, these factors should have been considered by the first respondent. Unfortunately, the first respondent failed to consider these relevant factors. In these circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent is arbitrary and violative under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I have thus no hesitation to set aside the impugned orders. Therefore, these factors should have been considered by the first respondent. Unfortunately, the first respondent failed to consider these relevant factors. In these circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent is arbitrary and violative under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I have thus no hesitation to set aside the impugned orders. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders relaxing Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules by counting the past service of the petitioner from 30.3.1960 to 23.1.1973 for pensionary benefits. 9. In the above terms, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the first respondent to comply with the aforesaid exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Order accordingly.