Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department on 14.09.1964, and his services were regularised with effect from 03.12.1965 after having been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 29.12.1977 and was sent on tenure basis as Inspector of Boilers. The post of Inspector of Boilers equivalent to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and is cadre post in the wing of Public Works department. 2. The petitioner in order to be permanently appointed as Inspector of Boilers, applied to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was selected as Inspector of Boilers and continued to perform the duties of Inspector of Boiler in pursuance to the fresh selection. 3. The case of the petitioner is that all of a sudden, his salary was reduced from Rs.2,345/- to Rs.1,340/- i.e. minimum time scale of pay of Inspector of Boilers i.e. Rs.1000/- less. 4. The case of the petitioner is that instructions have been issued by the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 23.12.1988 to refix the petitioners salary at basic pay and it was also ordered to be recover a sum of Rs.21,236.60 by way of instalments. 5. The case of the petitioner is that other similarly situated employees were allowed to be absorbed as Inspector of Boilers with retrospective effect, whereas the petitioner was denied the said benefit. 6. Though the petitioner made several representation, but the respondents failed to take any action on the representation. 7. The petitioner therefore approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 24.02.2004, with the consequential relief of writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to refix the salary and repay the amount recovered from the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularised as Inspector of Boilers with retrospective effect as he was appointed by way of fresh selection, as earlier, the petitioner was holding the post on the tenure basis, whereas other similarly situated persons were appointed by transfer of service from Tamil Nadu Engineering Service to Tamil Nadu Boiler Service which was not on tenure basis, before their appointment on regular basis through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 9. 9. On consideration, I find that defence raised is totally misconceived, as the artificial distinction is sought for by the respondents in the case of petitioner with other employees. Once it is not disputed that other similarly situated employees were also holding the post by way of transfer from parent department and were holding tenure post before being regularised, the petitioner cannot be discriminated merely on the ground that he was selected for appointment on regular basis during his appointment as tenure basis on the post of Inspector of Boiler. 10. The action of the respondents is directly hit by the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner was discriminated with other similarly situated persons with regard to fixation of pay scale on the ground that the petitioner was holding tenure post. 11. It may also be relevant to mention here that stand of the respondents is otherwise arbitrary as the petitioner was selected for appointment on regular basis through proper channel when he was holding the post. The petitioner cannot be treated to be fresh recruit to deny the benefit of pay fixation by discriminating with similarly situated employees. 12. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs.