Judgment : R. Banumathi, & T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. This appeal by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) is directed against the order dated 25.03.1998 in W.P.No.2035 of 1989, filed by the respondents herein. 2. The respondents filed the writ petition for a direction to the appellant Board to pass appropriate orders providing for promotion to the post of High Transmission Operator to be created in the place of existing post of Electrical Supervisor of Electrical Superintendent Grade-I in line with G.O.Ms.No.1407, Public Works Department, dated 02.09.1988, applicable to the holders of permanent posts in Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service and Temporary post holders as High Transmission Operators in Electrical Branch of Public Works Department. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition, by directing the appellant to promote all the respondents to the post of Electrical Supervisor with effect from 01.09.1981, and grant the difference of pay scale and other attendant benefits together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promotion till the date of payment. It was further observed that if the said post of Electrical Supervisor is not in existence, the appellant was directed to create four super numerary posts protecting their salary and status and promote them in the said posts. The appellant, TWAD Board being aggrieved by allowing of the writ petition with the directions aforementioned, has filed this appeal. 4. M/s.S.Thamizharasi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondents joined the Board as Electrician during 1971 and at that time, they possessed ITI Electrician Trade Certificate and "B" certificate and their services were regularised after completion of five years service. It is further submitted that in terms of B.P.Ms.No.141, dated 04.03.1986, regulations were framed for the post of Electrical Superintendent prescribing educational qualifications and experience for recruitment by transfer or by direct recruitment. It is further submitted that as per the service regulation, the candidates should possess a Diploma in Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training or any other equivalent qualification and since the respondents possessed only Certificate of Competency Electrical Supervisor, they were not qualified to be considered for the post. It is further submitted that as per the service regulation, the candidates should possess a Diploma in Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training or any other equivalent qualification and since the respondents possessed only Certificate of Competency Electrical Supervisor, they were not qualified to be considered for the post. Further, it is submitted that there is no post of Electrical Supervisor in the appellant Board and the post of Electrical Superintendent itself was created only during 1986 prescribing educational qualification and since the respondents do not possess the qualification, they cannot be considered. 5. Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, were elaborately considered by the learned Single Judge, who found that there was recommendation that the Electrical Inspector with Supervisory Competency Certificate could be appointed for the post of Electrical Supervisor and after taking note of the fact that the respondents were serving the Board from 1971 onwards without any promotion, rightly issued the direction to promote all the respondents to the post of Electrical Supervisor. It is submitted by the learned counsel as on date all the respondents have retired from service and if the direction issued in the writ petition is to be implemented, it would only amount to granting a notional benefit to the respondents/writ petitioners. 6. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The facts relating to the date of appointment of the respondents, their regularisation and the post they were holding, are not in dispute. The respondents were compelled to file the writ petition, since none of their representations numbering over 15 were considered by the appellant, wherein they requested the appellant Board to consider them for promotion to the post of Electrical Supervisor or Superintendent, as they possessed the requisite qualification namely, ITI Electrician Trade besides being awarded with Supervisory Competency Certificate by the appellant Board and had been serving the appellant Board for 17 years without any promotional opportunity. 8. 8. The appellant Board resisted the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the respondents/writ petitioners are holding the post of Electrician aspiring for promotion to the post of Electrical Supervisor or Electrical Superintendent Grade-I and in terms of the service regulations as amended in B.P.Ms.No.141, dated 04.03.1986, the qualification prescribed for holding the post of Electrical Superintendent is a Diploma in Electrical Engineering and since the respondents/writ petitioners do not possess a diploma qualification, their request cannot be considered. 9. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and directing the respondents to be promoted to the post of Electrical Supervisor w.e.f., 01.09.1981 and sanctioned all monetary benefits with retrospective effect together with interest at 12%. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant Board has filed the present appeal. 10. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the respondents can be denied promotion to the post of Electrical Superintendent Grade-I or Electrical Supervisor and whether the appellant Board is right in contending that the respondents are not entitled for promotion, as they do not possess the diploma qualification. The respondents joined the appellant Board as Electrician on various dates during 1971, they acquired the Supervisory Competency Certificate from the State Board of Technical Education during 1976 – 1979. The services of the respondents were regularised as Electricians on 01.01.1977 and it is admitted by the appellant Board that though the services of the respondents were regularised as Electrician during 1977, their services have been utilised as Electrical Supervisor. The appellant by B.P.Ms.No.141, dated 04.03.1986, in exercise of its power conferred under Section 73(1) & (2) of the TWAD Board Act, 1970, made certain amendments to the TWAD Board Service Regulations 1972. In the table under Regulation 23 clause No.9, was inserted, which deals with the post of Water Work Superintendent including Electrical Superintendent. The method of recruitment for these posts was by recruitment by transfer or by direct recruitment. The qualification prescribed is a diploma in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training or any other equivalent qualification. Further, two years experience was also required. Though this amendment was brought into effect by notification dated 04.03.1986, the same was given retrospective effect to from 01.01.1977. The qualification prescribed is a diploma in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training or any other equivalent qualification. Further, two years experience was also required. Though this amendment was brought into effect by notification dated 04.03.1986, the same was given retrospective effect to from 01.01.1977. In view of the retrospective effect of such amendment, the respondents whose services have been regularised w.e.f., 01.01.1977, are entitled to the benefit of such amendment. If such is the case, the next question, which has to be considered is whether the respondents are qualified to be considered for the said post of Electrical Superintendent. The claim of the respondents is attempted to be non-suited on the ground that they do not possess a diploma qualification. 11. As noticed above, the Rule prescribes a diploma in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering or any other equivalent qualification. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, the Senior Electrical Inspector in letter dated 25.01.1975, addressed to the appellant has stated that there is no authorised person to look after the installation; atleast one person with valid Supervisor's Competency Certificate should be exclusively appointed. In this connection, there was a further communication dated 16.10.1983, stating that Electrical Inspector with Supervisor's Competency Certificate could be appointed for the post of Electrical Supervisor. Infact, the Executive Engineer of the appellant Board from the Erode division has submitted a recommendation for promotion to the post of Electrical Supervisor because, the services of the respondents have been utilised by the Board as Electrical Supervisor's. This fact that the respondents were functioning as Electrical Supervisors has been admitted before this Court. Further, it is seen that there has been recommendation stating that Electrical Superintendent Grade-I & II could be appointed in case of all pumping stations having units of capacity of 50HP or more and the respondents have been working in pumping station of similar capacity. 12. In the light of the above communication, it is clear that the respondents possess the qualification equivalent to that of the diploma qualification, as they possess Supervisory Competency Certificate issued by the State Board of Technical Education. Further, the learned Single Judge has referred to B.P.Ms.No.505, dated 14.08.1986, by which, pay revision has been done for 44 posts and one among the post is the post of Electrical Supervisor. Further, the learned Single Judge has referred to B.P.Ms.No.505, dated 14.08.1986, by which, pay revision has been done for 44 posts and one among the post is the post of Electrical Supervisor. In such circumstances, the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge that the respondents cannot be denied promotion is perfectly justified. 13. In the light of the above facts, the appellant having extracted the work of Electrical Supervisor from the respondents is bound to pay the appropriate scale of pay in the said post, which is the promotional post. However, we are not inclined to grant full monetary benefits for the entire period and the same shall be restricted till the date of disposal of the writ petition i.e., 23.05.1986. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the order and direction issued in the writ petition is modified to the extent that the respondents shall be notionally promoted to the post of Electrical Supervisor from 01.09.1981 and their pay shall be fixed in the appropriate scale of pay. However, the respondents shall be entitled to monetary benefits only w.e.f., 25.03.1998, the date on which the writ petition was disposed of, the other directions contained in the order of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 14 are set aside. The appellant is directed to take into consideration the revised scale of pay for the purpose of fixation of pension. However, as stated above, the monetary benefits shall be paid only from 25.03.1998. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.