Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, having been appointed as as Headmaster of Primary School, Thiruppavanam Panchayat Union on 22.8.1962, was placed in the selection grade on 01.04.1974. 2. The petitioner passed Pulavar examination in the year 1975 and qualified B.Lit. in 1977, M.A. in 1981 and B.Ed. in January 1982. In view of the fact that the petitioner acquired higher qualification, he became entitled to the grant of incentive increment for acquiring the degree of M.A., B.Ed. The petitioner was granted special grade on 22nd of January 1982. 3. The petitioner was promoted as Middle School Headmaster (B.T.Headmaster) on 16th of January 1986 and was posted at the Government Middle School, Poolangal. The school was thereafter upgraded to High School level on 16.07.1986 and the petitioner was adjusted as Tamil Pandit in the upgraded school and also granted selection grade on 16.07.1996. In order to remove anomaly of the person in higher grade getting lesser pay on account of implementation of 6th pay commission, the State of Tamil Nadu issued instructions to step up the salary of employee in the higher grade at the stage equivalent to the pay drawn in the lower post by the employee. 4. The State Government issued instructions vide G.O.No.57, dated 18.1.1991, stipulating that on or after 01.06.1988, if the Government servant drew more pay in the revised scale on the substantive post, he shall continue to draw it by ignoring the post held by him on the officiating post. The pay in the officiating post was ordered to be fixed at the next stage pay of the substantive post. 5. The State Government, thereafter, issued further instructions to extend these instructions to the teachers, working in the High School and Higher Secondary School. 6. In view of the fact, that B.T. Grade teachers are promoted from the post of Headmaster, Primary School, prior to 01.06.1988, their pay was ordered to be fixed under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules 1989. According to which, if the pay in the post of Headmaster Primary School was higher than the pay in the post of B.T.Grade teacher, then the employee was entitled to protect pay drawn as Headmaster Primary School and was further held entitled to be placed in the next stage in that grade. 7. According to which, if the pay in the post of Headmaster Primary School was higher than the pay in the post of B.T.Grade teacher, then the employee was entitled to protect pay drawn as Headmaster Primary School and was further held entitled to be placed in the next stage in that grade. 7. In compliance with the instructions of the State Government, the petitioner was placed in the upgraded scale on his absorption as Tamil Pandit in the upgraded school. The petitioner was also allowed to draw regular increment till the age of his retirement. The last pay drawn by petitioner on the date of retirement was Rs.10,750/- 8. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fix pension and other retiral benefits, including commutation of pension by taking Rs.10,750/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to be the last drawn pay of the petitioner. 9. The proposal for granting the relief claimed was sent to the State Government, which was not accepted, rather the impugned order was passed, which reads as under: "OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI-18. 12.01.01. Note : Pen.10/IV/PPO.C107860/P77/668/ To The Headmaster, Govt. Higher Secondary School, M.Reddiapatty, VirudhunagarDistrict. Sir, Sub : Revisionand Pension in respect of Shri.A.Rengaraj, Tamil Pandit – DOR 31.5.01. Ref :YourLr.RC. 72/01, dated 27.8.01. I am to return herewith the SR of Shri. A.Rengaraj. As already explained in this Office Admittance Report dt. 2.5.01, calculation of pensionary benefits taking Rs.10475/- as pay last drawn is in order. There are no specific orders from the Government of Tamilnadu extending the benefit of Rule (4) (3) to Tamil Pandits serving in upgraded High Schools. However, if the official desires to represent the case to Government, he may do so though the Director of School Education. Yours faithfully, For Sr.Accounts Officer Encl : SR ivol. Pen. 10 (IV) Copy to Shri. A.Rengaraj, 1/142, Muthuramalingapuram, AruppukottaiTaluk, Virudhunagar District. For Sr.Accounts Officer." 10. The impugned order is not sustainable in law, as on the face of it, is arbitrary. The reading of the order shows, that the only ground for denying the relief to petitioner is, that no specific order was passed by the State Government under Rule 4 (3) in the case of Tamil Pandit serving in the upgraded Schools. 11. The impugned order is not sustainable in law, as on the face of it, is arbitrary. The reading of the order shows, that the only ground for denying the relief to petitioner is, that no specific order was passed by the State Government under Rule 4 (3) in the case of Tamil Pandit serving in the upgraded Schools. 11. This reason given is totally misconceived, as there is no necessity to pass any specific order under Rule 4 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1989. The Rule, on being enforced, is binding on the employee as well as employer. No specific order is required to be passed to give benefit of the rules, to which the employee is entitled to under the rules. 12. Once the rules are notified and enforced, the benefit flowing therefrom is to be granted automatically by way of administrative order, which can be said to be merely a ministerial act, which the employer is statutorily bound to pass. 13. The contention of learned Additional Government Pleader, that the writ is premature, as no adverse order against petitioner has been passed, as liberty has been granted to petitioner to approach the Government for passing of an order under Rule 4 (3), cannot be accepted. The petitioner was entitled to benefit under the rules, which were granted to petitioner and his pay was fixed in the post of Tamil Pandit by protecting his salary, as Headmaster Primary School, and consequential benefits were also granted. 14. The impugned order takes away the right of petitioner to which he is entitled to under the rules, therefore, the writ cannot be said to be premature, as contended by learned Additional Government Pleader. 15. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued, quashing the impugned order, with direction to the respondents to grant of pensionary benefits to petitioner, by calculating it on last pay drawn by petitioner i.e. Rs.10,750/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only). 16. The needful be done within three months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs.