Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 27.03.2000 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for removal of anomaly in the pay scale. 2. The case of the petitioner is that vide G.O.Ms.142, dated 03.02.1973, the time scale of pay was fixed for various categories borne on the provincialised work -Charged Establishment in the Public Works Department. The pay scale were made applicable with retrospective effect from 24.11.1970. 3. On the proposal submitted by Chief Engineer (Ground water) for sanction of time scales of pay to certain categories of the work charged establishment personnel in the ground water wing, for whom revised scales of pay have not been sanctioned. The Government accepted the proposals and sanctioned the time scale wide order dated 26.10.1977. The pay scale sanctioned to the different posts reads as under: While revising the pay scale of employees referred to above the pay of following categories of employees were also revised. The Drillers and Assistant Drillers were therefore placed in time pay scale HIGHER than that of Works Assistants. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of Work Assistants was re-designated as work Inspector and they are employed to carry out the works assigned to them by Drillers and Assistant Drillers and to assist them in their job. 4. The post of Work Inspector therefore is treated as lower categories and in lower scales than that of the Driller and Assistant Driller. 5. Thereafter, on recommendation of 3rd pay commission the pay scale of Driller and Assistant Driller were revised to Rs.400 -700 and Rs.325-550 respectively and the pay scale of Work Inspector were revised as Rs.310-500. 6. The case of the petitioner further is that thereafter the IV pay commission recommendation pay scale of Driller was fixed at Rs.705-1230 and that of Assistant Driller at Rs.555-970 and the Works Inspector Grade I were equated with that of the Works Inspector Grade II in the scale of Rs.610-1075. 7. The case of the petitioner is that anomaly started from this stage, which was carried forward in the recommendation of VI pay commission wherein the pay of Driller/Assistant Driller and that of Work Inspectors were equated wide G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998, pay scales were revised further as under: 8. 7. The case of the petitioner is that anomaly started from this stage, which was carried forward in the recommendation of VI pay commission wherein the pay of Driller/Assistant Driller and that of Work Inspectors were equated wide G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998, pay scales were revised further as under: 8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the anomaly in the pay scale filed representations before the State Government, but no action was taken on the representation which forced the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 9. It was on the direction of the learned Tribunal the impugned order had been passed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law as it is a non speaking order and gives no reason to justify the anomaly, nor it is disclosed as to how the Driller/Assistant Drillers are holding the post of lower responsibility though the post of Work Inspector is a feeder post to further promotion as Driller and Assistant Driller. 11. It is further contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that no reason has been given to justify as to how the post having lower pay scale was subsequently placed in higher pay scale without assigning any reason. 12. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts pleaded herein above would show that the posts of Works Inspectors was treated as lower category posts from that of the posts of Drillers and Assistant Drillers. The impugned order, therefore cannot be sustained as it does not meet the requirement of passing speaking order, as the authorities while deciding the representations are required to give reasons for rejection of the contentions raised in the representation. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. 13. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents for reconsidering of the representation of the petitioner for removal of anomaly in the pay scale. The respondents are directed to pass a speaking order meeting with the contentions raised by the petitioner. No costs. 14. The needful be done, within three months, of receipt of certified copy of this order.