Judgment :- 1. Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 16.08.2011, denying selection grade to the petitioner on due date by ignoring the service rendered by the petitioner as Sericulture Operatives. 2. The impugned order reads as under: Office of the Director of Sericulture Salem636 001 Rc.No.7477/E2/2011 Dated :16.8.2011 MEMO Sub: Estt- Tamilnadu Industries Subordinate Service Asst. Inspectors of Sericulture – requested to fix their pay on par with Thiru M.Sivasankar, As Inspector of Sericulture – who is junior than to them – reply sent – reg. Ref: Representations received from the Asst. Inspectors of Sericulture concerned. In the reference cited the Asst. Inspectors of Sericulture of this department formerly Junior Inspector of Sericulture have requested to fix their pay in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture on par with Thiru M.Sivasankar, Asst. Inspector of Sericulture who is junior to them and simultaneously in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture also. The representations have been examined in detail with reference to Govt. Orders As per the Orders, dated 21.4.2009 issued in W.A.No.1398/2008 of Hon'ble High Court of Madras filed by Thiru M.Sivasankar and Thiru M.Mookan were awarded selection grade and special grade in the post of junior Inspector of Sericulture by counting their service rendered in the post of Operative/Sericulture Demonstrator. Govt. in Lr.No.12733/G1/2000-13, HHT&K (G1) Dept., Dt. 10.4.2002 have stated that the Supreme Court in the case State of Bihar and others vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and others reported in the AIR 2000 SC 2306 held that wrong judgement passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefit. In the light of the above, the representations are rejected as devoid of merit. The petitioner joined the Sericulture department in February 1979. In the year 1981, the post of Sericulture Demonstrator was merged with the junior Inspector of Sericulture. The petitioner has total service of 32 years and is now working as Assistant Inspector of Sericulture at Avalapalli, Hosur. 3. According to the rules governing the service conditions of the employee, the employee is entitled to senior scale after 10 years of service, selection grade after 20 years of service. The petitioner attained senior grade and selection grade by counting his date of joining as that of senior instructor by ignoring the service rendered by the petitioner as Horticulture operatives. 4. The petitioner attained senior grade and selection grade by counting his date of joining as that of senior instructor by ignoring the service rendered by the petitioner as Horticulture operatives. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that once the post of Horticulture operatives was merged with Junior Inspector of Sericulture, it could not be treated to be a promotion post but change of designation therefore, all the service rendered by the petitioner in the department was required to be taken into consideration for granting senior scale and selection scale. 5. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench of this court, in W.A.No.1398/2008, State of Tamilnadu and others vs. M.Sivasankar and another, decided on 21.04.2009, holding therein as under: "....The presumption that on merger of two categories, if one category was lower and the merger was with higher category constituting promotion avenue earlier is in fact promotion and on that basic pay should be fixed as if on promotion is not correct. The merger has that effect of upgrading the lower post to the higher category and the scales of pay becomes same. Therefore, but for the merger and Sericulture Demonstrator would be eligible for selection grade with reference to his service as such and the pay scale applicable would be the common scale now applicable to the Junior Inspector of Sericulture in which category the Sericulture Demonstrators has been merged. The merger therefore, is in effect re-designation and not a promotion. The benefit of service as Sericulture Demonstrator can not be denied for fixation of pay in selection and special grades, if only for the reason that but for the re-designation consequent on the merger, the Sericulture Demonstrators would be eligible to count their entire service for purpose of selection and special grades in new scale for the post which is the same as that of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. 5. On a reading of the said order, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the averments in the above said batch of cases are distinct from that of the respondents' case. The only difference is that the applicants therein have joined service in the year 1961 while the present respondents have joined in the year 1979. But the post remains the same. The only difference is that the applicants therein have joined service in the year 1961 while the present respondents have joined in the year 1979. But the post remains the same. The respondents have joined as temporary Sericulture Operatives which was subsequently merged and called as Sericulture Demonstrators from the year 1981 by G.O.Ms. No. 603 dated 08.03.1989. Subsequently, Sericulture Demonstrators post itself has been merged with the Junior Inspector of Sericulture now called as Junior Inspector of Sericulture. 6. It is well settled that once similarly placed persons as that of the respondents have been given a relief, the respondents are also entitled to get such benefits." 6. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents by filing counter, by submitting that the Special Rules for Tamilnadu Industries Subordinate Service amended vide G.O.Ms.1248, Industries, Labour & Commerce Department dated 31.3.1958, wherein the cadre was divided into five categories, which reads as under: Category - I -Inspector of Sericulture Category - II -Assistant Inspector of Sericulture Category - III -Junior Inspector of Sericulture Category - IV -Sericulture Demonstrator Category - V -Operative 7. It is the case of the respondents that post of Horticulture operatives was a feeder category to promotion to Sericulture Demonstrator, who could thereafter be promoted as junior Inspector Sericulture. 8. It is further submission of the respondent that vide G.O.Ms.No.603, the Government decided that the post of Sericulture Demonstrator and Operative be merged together and the post redesignated as Sericulture Demonstrator. 9. The case of the respondent is further that vide G.O.Ms.694, Finance Department dated 11.8.86, in the scale of pay of Sericulture Demonstrator was merged with the scale of pay of Junior Inspector of Sericulture with effect from 1.10.1984 (notionally with monetary benefit from 1.4.86). 10. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.310/Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi Department the Government merged the post of Sericulture Demonstrator with that of junior Inspector of Sericulture and directed to redesignate them as Junior Inspector of Sericulture by fixing their seniority below the existing Junior Inspector of Sericulture. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, is, that the post of Sericulture Demonstrator is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture in higher grade. The petitioner therefore is not entitled for grant of senior scale and selection grade by taking total length of service into consideration. 12. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, is, that the post of Sericulture Demonstrator is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture in higher grade. The petitioner therefore is not entitled for grant of senior scale and selection grade by taking total length of service into consideration. 12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the impugned order cannot be faulted with, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that a wrong decision does not give right to an employee to claim the similar relief, by invoking the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. On consideration, I find there is force in the contention laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There can be no dispute with the proposition of Law, that a wrong decision does not give right to other employee as to claim similar relief. But at the same time, when one employee has been rightly given the benefit, the same cannot be denied to similarly situated employee. 14. The question for determination in this case is, whether the person appointed as Horticulture operatives would be entitled to senior scale and selection scale by counting service from the date of initial appointment or from the date of merger. 15. The answer to the question is that the total length of service is to be counted, as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 16. Even in the counter, though attempt has been made to draw the distinction between the post of Horticulture Operatives and that of Junior Inspector Sericulture, but it is finally admitted in the counter that the posts were merged. The only reason for placing the Horticulture Operatives and Horticulture Demonstrator at the bottom was that the post was carrying lower scale of pay at the time of merger. Therefore, by following rules of seniority these employees on merger was placed below in the seniority list, but they cannot be denied the right to be treated as members of the cadre from the date of initial appointment as it was the case of merger of two cadres. 17. The benefit granted to the similarly situated employee, therefore cannot be said to wrongly granted by the court. 18. 17. The benefit granted to the similarly situated employee, therefore cannot be said to wrongly granted by the court. 18. The impugned order, cannot be sustained as the only reason for denial, is that the petitioner cannot be equated with other similarly situated employee on the ground that they were given the benefit wrongly. 19. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court has considered the Government Orders and recorded a finding, that the employees similarly situated as the petitioner were entitled to counting of entire service rendered in department. Consequently, the impugned order on the face of it being arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained in Law. 20. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to grant senior scale and special scale to the petitioner on completion of 10 and 20 years of service, respectively by taking into account the total length of service rendered by the petitioner as Junior Inspector and Horticulture Operatives.