Judgment : 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner joined service as Higher Grade Teacher on 5.11.1969 and he served in the said capacity upto 31.12.1970. Thereafter, he served as Secondary Grade Teacher. According to him, though he possessed the qualification for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, he was appointed only as a Higher Grade Teacher. 4. In similar circumstances, the Higher Grade Teachers approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in 1998 by fling Original Application No.8200 of 1998 seeking a direction to pay the scale of pay applicable to the Secondary Grade Teachers to the petitioners therein, for the service rendered as Higher Grade Teacher. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.38449 of 2006. The same was allowed by me by an order dated 5.1.2010, following the judgment dated 20.6.2008 in W.P.No.26377 OF 2006. 5. In fact, that decision relies on the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.282, 283 and 3441 of 1993. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order dated 5.1.2010 in W.P.No.38449 of 2006 is relevant for the purpose of this case and the same is extracted hereunder: "4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 20.6.2008 in W.P.No.26377 of 2006. The said decision relies on the order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.282, 283 and 3441 of 1993. This Court has also noted that the order of the Tribunal became final. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the order in W.P.No.26377 of 2006, which are relevant for the purpose of the case, are extracted hereunder: "2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Higher Grade Teacher from 3.10.1968 to 19.3.1971. Then he was promoted as Elementary School Headmaster with effect from1.6.1985 to 1.12.1989. From 2.12.1989 to 30.1.1995, he served as Secondary Grade Teacher and then again from 21.1.1995 onwards, the petitioner is working as Elementary School Headmaster. The petitioner with Secondary Grade qualification served in the higher scale place is entitled to count the higher grade service with his secondary grade service. From 2.12.1989 to 30.1.1995, he served as Secondary Grade Teacher and then again from 21.1.1995 onwards, the petitioner is working as Elementary School Headmaster. The petitioner with Secondary Grade qualification served in the higher scale place is entitled to count the higher grade service with his secondary grade service. Thus, since the petitioner possessed the qualification of secondary grade, he is entitled to get the period of service rendered by him in the post of higher grade teacher with secondary grade service and the arrears of pay. 3. It has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in O.A.Nos.282, 283 and 3441 of 1993 (A.Ilangovan vs. the Director of Elementary Education and others), the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, while considering the matter in issue had passed the following order: "Indeed, there cannot be any intelligible difference between the Secondary Grade Certificate holders served in the Higher Grade place after 1.1.1971 or prior to 1.1.1971. This is the well settled principle in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Vol.II SC SLJ 498 that equality of quality of opportunity for the purpose of seniority, promotion and like matters of employment is available only for persons who fall subsequently within the same class or unit of service. The fundamental right of equality means that person in like situation under like circumstances are entitled to be treated alike. What is enjoyed is that all citizens in matter of service under the state shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. The primary aim is to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for purposeful or invidious discrimination or hostile treatment. The purpose is to ensure similarly and equitable treatment and identity of treatment in matters relating to initial engagement, during continuance of that enjoyment and a the terminal end of that enjoyment. This principle has been laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1957 PAT 617 , AIR 1962 SC 36. The pivotal question in the present case is whether the teacher similarly circumstanced in the same class or service or unit are treated alike. The factual position is that the teachers similarly situated in the same class category and unit are treated unequally. The pivotal question in the present case is whether the teacher similarly circumstanced in the same class or service or unit are treated alike. The factual position is that the teachers similarly situated in the same class category and unit are treated unequally. In other words, the equals are treated as unequals. Therefore, the question of hostile discrimination will arise. Moreover, in the instant case, fixing the cut off date as 1.1.1971 itself is arbitrary and unreasonable in view of the decisions reported in 1988 (2) CAT 250 and 1988 (3) SLJ 53. When the secondary grade qualified teacher service period in the place of Higher Grade is treated as Secondary Grade from 1.1.1971 the same should also be extended to the Secondary Grade qualified Teacher serving in the Higher Grade prior on 1.1.1971 also. Otherwise the same would amount to clear discrimination. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applications are allowed and we direct the respondents to grant secondary grade scale of pay to the applicants for the period of service of the applicants in the Higher Grade place with the Secondary grade qualification and it be counted as Secondary Grade service for the purpose of seniority, selection/special grade and for promotional opportunities to the higher post. All consequential service and monetary benefits shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of this order or a copy thereof. 4. Admittedly, no appeal had been preferred against the said order. In view of the said fact, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the above case covers the case of the petitioner also. The said fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent." 5. Since the matter is squarely covered by the decision in W.P.No.26377 OF 2006 as stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to settle all the monetary benefits to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. In the circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.4.2013 claiming similar benefits as granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.38449 of 2006. In the circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.4.2013 claiming similar benefits as granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.38449 of 2006. Since no order is passed, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to treat the services rendered by him in the place of Higher Grade from 5.11.1969 to 31.121970 as Secondary Grade Teacher and award all attendant benefits in light of the order dated 5.1.2010 passed by this Honourable Court in W.P. No. 38449 of 2006. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as given to the petitioner in W.P.No.38449 of 2006. The learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and therefore no monetary benefits shall be given. 8. I am of the view that there is some force in the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader. The petitioner has not approached this Court claiming salary applicable to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in 1998 like others. 9. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.4.2013 in the light of the order dated 5.1.2010 in W.P.No.38449 of 2006, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to only notional fixation of pay and the same could be helpful to the petitioner in the matter of revision of pension. The petitioner is entitled to arrears of the pensionary benefits. No costs.