Judgment :- 1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, a common order is passed. 2. The petitioners are the retired Head Masters. The only question which is to be decided is as to whether the services rendered by the petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers will have to be taken into consideration for awarding the payment under the selection Grade and Special Grade in the category of middle school Head Master. 3. Considering the very same issue, this Court on an earlier occasion, in a batch of writ petitions filed in W.P.No.17350 of 2010 etc., dated 19.07.2011 has passed the following order. "All these writ petitions arising out of common question of seeking the relief of counting the services of the petitioners in respect of their lower post cadre for the purpose of awarding special grade and selection grade for the promotion on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010. By mutual consent of the both side learned counsels, the main writ petitions itself taken up together for passing the common order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all these petitioners worked in the very same Department of the respondents as Middle School Headmasters and they retired from the service. But they have not been given the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010, in respect of their claim for promotion by treating their services in the lower cadre posts for awarding Special Grade and Selection Grade and by granting the relief of promotion. It is contended that similarly placed persons as that of the petitioners have been given the said relief on the ground that they have approached the Court and pursuant to the Court order, the G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010 were passed. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no justification for denying such benefits merely because the petitioners have not approached the Court or the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in spite of the fact that the petitioners are also entitled to seek the relief as per Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners of their entitlement to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010. 3. Heard Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have not approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal or the Court at the earliest point of time to claim the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010 and therefore, their requests are not considered. 4. This Court carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the entire materials available on record including G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010. 5. The fact remains that similarly placed persons as that of the petitioners have been given the benefit of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010 in respect of the conferment of Special Grade and Selection Grade and thereafter for promotion by taking into consideration of their earlier service in the lower cadre of posts, but unfortunately, the said benefit was denied to the petitioners merely on the ground that the petitioners have not approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal or the Court. This Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no justification for such a stand taken by the first respondent hereinfor declining to grant the relief of benefits as per the above said Government Orders, as the same would amount to discrimination. 6. It is seen that the petitioners in the above writ petitions have already submitted their representations to the first respondent. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to direct the first respondent to consider the representations given by the petitioners on various dates seeking the relief of counting the period of their service in the lower cadre post for conferring the Selection Grade and Special Grade and consequential monetary and attendant benefits in the light of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2010 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 4. Applying the judgment of this Court and taking into consideration of the facts that the petitioners entitlement for the rejection only on the ground that the petitioners have not approached this Court on earlier occasion as against the similarly placed persons, this Court is inclined to allow these writ petitions. It is also to be seen that the identically placed persons like petitioners have approached the Court on an earlier occasion and got appropriate orders, which has become final as against the respondents. Therefore, the reason shown in the counter filed by the respondents cannot be sustained. It is also an admitted fact that for those teachers who approached this Court and who are identically placed like the petitioners, the respondents have accepted the orders passed by this Court and granted relief. 5. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the direction given by this Court in the judgment rendered above in para 6 is made applicable to the appropriate case as well. No costs.