Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioners have been working as Assistant Inspectors of Sericulture. They had worked as Sericulture Demonstrators and as Junior Inspectors of Sericulture, during different periods. However, as the posts of Sericulture Demonstrators and Junior Inspectors of Sericulture had been merged, the services rendered by them, in the said posts, had to be counted for the purpose of granting senior scale and selection scale of pay, during the pay upgradation. Even though certain other similarly placed persons, as that of the petitioners, had been granted the pay benefits, the petitioners had not been granted such pay benefits. The representations submitted by the petitioners, requesting for the grant of such benefits, had been rejected, by the second respondent, by his impugned proceedings, dated 16.8.2011. In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petitions, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the averments and the allegations made by the petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had been denied. 4. It had been stated that, as per the relevant Government Orders, the petitioners are not entitled for the pay benefits, as claimed by them. 5. It has been further stated that, as per the guidelines issued in the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 11.3.1987, the selection grade of the petitioner cannot be fixed taking into account the service rendered in the post of Operatives, as well as in the post of Sericulture Demonstrators, as the scale of pay relating to the said categories are different. Further, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.898, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 23.9.1983, the selection grade can be awarded by taking into account the period of 10 years of service only from the date of its merger. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, have already been dealt with in the order, dated 26.4.2012, made in W.P.Nos.9859, 10548 and 11098 of 2012. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, have already been dealt with in the order, dated 26.4.2012, made in W.P.Nos.9859, 10548 and 11098 of 2012. This Court, by its order, dated 26.4.2012, had set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents therein, rejecting the requests made on behalf of the petitioners in the said writ petitions, to grant them the benefits, which had been granted to other similarly placed persons. 7. It is not in dispute that certain other persons, who had been similarly placed, as that of the petitioners, had been granted similar benefits, as prayed for by the petitioners herein. Therefore, it is not open to the second respondent to state that the benefits cannot be extended to the petitioners, as such benefits had been granted to the other persons, erroneously, especially, when the orders passed by this Court, in similar matters, had become final. Hence, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2011, is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to extend the benefits granted to other similarly placed persons, to the petitioners herein, including the monetary and other service benefits, as prayed for by them, in the present writ petition. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.