JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent. Through the said impugned order dated 03.04.2000, the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for payment of salary as Grade I Tamil Pandit with effect from the date of his appointment viz., 03.12.1971 as Grade II Tamil Pandit. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was originally appointed as Grade II Tamil Pandit at the fourth respondent school on 03.12.1971, though he was possessing qualification to be appointed as Grade I Tamil Pandit. A large number of Grade II Tamil Pandits who were fully qualified to be appointed as Grade I Tamil Pandits were continuing as Grade II Tamil Pandits at various schools by drawing the Grade II scale of pay like the petitioner. They made a representation to the Government and based on such representation, G.O.Ms.No.325, Education Department dated 25.02.1971, came to be passed through which, the Government sanctioned the creation of 2000 posts of Grade I Tamil Pandits by converting 2000 posts of Grade II Tamil Pandits in order to absorb Grade II Tamil Pandits, who are working in the schools with full qualification to hold the post of Grade I Tamil Pandits. Subsequently, another 260 posts of Grade I Tamil Pandits were created by G.O.Ms.No.1724 Education Department dated 28.10.1972. One more G.O. came to be passed in G.O.Ms.No.1484 Education Department dated 28.08.1973 through which, another 240 posts of Grade I Tamil Pandits were created. Only in pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.1484, the petitioner got the benefit of upgradation as Grade I Tamil Pandit with effect from 28.08.1973. The petitioner by accepting the said upgradation with effect from the said date of G.O. received the salary and after working in such capacity, also retired on 31.05.2000. However, while he was in service, he made a representation on 26.12.1996 i.e., after nearly 23 years from the date of upgradation of his post as Grade I Tamil Pandit, seeking for payment of salary as Grade I Tamil Pandit from the date of his appointment viz.,03.12.1971. The said representation came to be made by him based on another G.O. passed in G.O.Ms.No.119, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 20.06.1995. The said representation came to be made by him based on another G.O. passed in G.O.Ms.No.119, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 20.06.1995. Under the said G.O., the Government accepted the suggestions of the Director of Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and directed that 240 teachers who were qualified for Secondary Grade Posts but were acting as Higher Grade Teacher from 01.01.1971 to 02.10.1973 be allowed Secondary Grade scale of pay with effect from 01.01.1971 or from the date of their appointment whichever is later. Thus, the petitioner claimed the salary as Grade I Tamil pandit from 03.12.1971 onwards. It is his contention that he should also be given similar benefit as given to the Higher Grade Teachers who possessed Secondary Grade qualification. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order by holding that the said G.O. upgrading the petitioner's post from Grade II to Grade I was issued on 28.08.1973 and only from the date of the said G.O., the upgradation was effected and the petitioner was also given the benefit and therefore, the request for payment of salary as Grade I Tamil Pandit with effect from 03.12.1971, cannot be considered. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is also similarly situated person like that of the other Higher Grade Teachers who got the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.119, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 20.06.1995 and therefore, he should be given the benefit. The petitioner also relied on G.O.Ms.No.347 Education Department dated 15.09.1998. 4. Per contra, the third respondent filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner was promoted as Grade I Tamil Pandit as per the orders of the Government passed in G.O.Ms.No.1484 Education Department dated 28.08.1973 and when the petitioner was admittedly working as a Tamil Pandit and not as Secondary Grade Teacher, he cannot seek any benefit arising out of G.O.Ms.No.347 Education Department dated 15.09.1998. 5. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. 6. The petitioner herein was admittedly appointed as Grade II Tamil Pandit in the fourth respondent school on 03.12.1971. His post was upgraded as Grade I Tamil Pandit only with effect from 28.08.1973. 5. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. 6. The petitioner herein was admittedly appointed as Grade II Tamil Pandit in the fourth respondent school on 03.12.1971. His post was upgraded as Grade I Tamil Pandit only with effect from 28.08.1973. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, accepting the said upgradation with effect from 28.08.1973, received the salary only from the said date as Grade I Tamil Pandit without any protest and also retired on 30.05.2000. No doubt, he has made a representation in the year 1996 based on a G.O. came to be passed in the year 1995 viz., G.O.Ms.No.119, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 20.06.1995. 7. In my considered view, the very claim of the petitioner made after nearly 23 years, that too, based on a G.O. passed in the year 1995, i.e., passed after 22 years from the date of upgradation, cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to seek a benefit especially, when the said G.O. is not specifically referable to the posts of Tamil Pandit. Admittedly, the said G.O. came to be passed only in respect of Higher Grade Teachers who were working with the qualification of Secondary Grade Teacher at the Adi Dravidar Welfare School. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek any benefit out of the said G.O.. Even otherwise, when the upgradation was effected only through G.O.Ms.No.1484 Education Department dated 28.08.1973 by creation of 240 posts of Grade I Tamil Pandits necessarily, the pay has to be paid only from the date of creation of the posts with upgradation as Grade I Tamil Pandits. Moreover, the petitioner made the claim nearly after 23 years. Such time barred claim cannot be entertained even assuming that the petitioner's claim has some merits. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected by the impugned order with which I find no infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.