Judgment :- 1. This judgment shall dispose of the following writ petitions, viz., as common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.25245 of 2008. 2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent Board to extend the Special Grade Scheme to the Petitioners, which was introduced vide Memo (Per) No. 54595/A3/A31/2006-5 dated 05.04.2007. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the retired Assistant Executive Engineers and Junior Engineer Grade I respectively of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioners retired from the services between 01.12.2000 and 30.11.2002. 4. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board regulates service conditions of its employees by long term settlement, which are entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. One long term settlement was entered into on 01.12.1996 between the workmen and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which was to remain in force for a period of 4 years, which, came to an end on 30.11.2000. 5. The Union representing the workmen submitted their fresh charter of demands and negotiations for entering into the long term settlement. The negotiations between the Management and Union went on nearly 5 years and fresh long term settlement was arrived at on 15.10.2005. 6. This settlement was a statutory settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. It was agreed that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board will revise the wages from 01.12.2002. The period between, i.e. 01.12.2002 to 30.11.2002, was not covered, therefore, it was decided to pay consolidated amount of Rs.2400/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Four Hundred only) at the rate of Rs.100/-per month. The payment of Rs.100/- was agreed to be extended to workmen / officers, who retired / voluntarily retired / expired between 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2002 proportionately. 8. It was also decided, that the pension of employees, who retired / voluntarily retired / expired while in service and were eligible for family pension from 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2002, would have an increase of 6%, subject to a minimum increase of Rs.600/-in the total of pay and dearness allowance, drawn on the date of retirement. This was to be treated as personal pay. 9. This was to be treated as personal pay. 9. It is the submission of petitioners, that Union of the Workmen and Officers raised demands for fresh wage revision in the year 1999 and 2000 and one of the demands was to introduce Special Grade Scheme in view of the large scale stagnation on the same post for long years. It is submitted, that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board delayed the wage revision negotiation and arrived at a settlement only on 15.10.2005. 10. The Board thereafter decided vide Proceedings B.P.No.12 dated 08.02.2006 to introduce a Special Grade Scheme, pursuant to the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Act. The said scheme was kept in abeyance in view of the objection by the Union and it was finally introduced on 05.04.2007. 11. The Special Grade Scheme was introduced by the Board, with the following modifications: "i) The persons, who have relinquished their rights for promotion permanently on or after 15.10.2005 need not be considered for Special Grade. For persons, who have relinquished their rights for promotion temporarily, such temporary period of relinquishment shall not be taken into account for calculation of 20 years period. ii) In respect of persons, undergoing punishment on the date of completion of 20 years of service in one and the same post, the Special Grade shall be allowed only on the date of completion of the punishment period." It was decided that the anomalies etc raising in implementation of scheme would be rectified under the Rules. 12. The grievance of petitioners is that in case the Board would have arrived at a settlement on wage revision in the year 2000 or 2001 or at least in 2002, the petitioners could be covered under the scheme of the Special Grade Scheme, as they stagnated on the same post for more than 20 years. 13. It is submitted that, once the Board had extended the benefit of wage revision arrears for the period 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2002, by paying lumpsum amount, the Board ought to have extended the benefit of the Special Grade Scheme to petitioners also. 14. The Special Grade Scheme has been denied to the following category of persons: "i) Junior Engineers Grade I retired from service between 1.12.2000 to 30.11.2002. ii) Junior Engineers Grade I promoted to Asst. 14. The Special Grade Scheme has been denied to the following category of persons: "i) Junior Engineers Grade I retired from service between 1.12.2000 to 30.11.2002. ii) Junior Engineers Grade I promoted to Asst. Executive Engineer between 1.12.2000 to 30.11.2002 and retired iii) Junior Engineers Grade I completed 20 years of service and promoted to Asst. Executive Engineer before 01.12.2002 and retired after 01.12.2002." Whereas the Special Grade Scheme was extended to similar category of employees after 01.12.2002, as they were in service, when the agreement was signed. 15. The action of the respondent Board in not extending the benefit of the Special Grade Scheme is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the ground of discrimination. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Board, while entering settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, could not have discriminated between employees similarly situated, merely on the ground of date of their retirement from service. 16. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, that though the petitioners are retired, but they form one class with persons in service, and once the persons in service, have been granted the benefit of Special Grade Scheme, it could not be denied to petitioners. Therefore, action of respondent Board is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. On consideration, I find no force in these writ petitions. It is well settled law, that Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied to the separate class of persons. Equality can be enforced in the same categories. Retired persons form separate class from the one, who are in service. Even otherwise, the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is arrived at by way of negotiation and consent of parties. It is only by virtue of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, that it gets force of statutory agreement, which can be enforced in the Labour Court. Furthermore, it is an agreement arrived at between the Union and Management. Once both the parties agreed to a particular settlement, it can hardly be said to be discriminatory, as parties are bound by the act of representing Unions. 18. Furthermore, it is an agreement arrived at between the Union and Management. Once both the parties agreed to a particular settlement, it can hardly be said to be discriminatory, as parties are bound by the act of representing Unions. 18. The petitioners form a separate class from the one, who have been granted benefit, therefore, cannot claim discrimination or contend, that action of the respondent Board is violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 19. For the reasons stated, finding no merits in these writ petitions, these are ordered to be dismissed. 20. No costs.