Judgment : This Court, vide order dated 27.6.2014, passed in a batch of writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.23847, 23848, 24338, 26583, 26785 and 28878 of 2013 allowed the said writ petitions and the relevant portion of the said order reads thus: “8. In this context, it is useful to refer the unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court dated 19.11.2013 made in WP.No 16711 of 2013, wherein this Court has held that if in terms of clause 4(c) of G.O.M.s.No.77 dated 12.7.2013, rights have been accrued to the persons, who have retired prior to the issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12.7.2013, the same cannot be taken away by means of subsequent G.O., It is useful to refer the operative portion of the said judgment. “13. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that neither G.O.Ms.No.39 nor G.O.Ms. NO.77 can override the Statutory Rule, I have to say that at the same time, the Fundamental Right which is sacrosanct as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be violated by a Statutory Rule. When the Government itself has taken a policy decision to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.39 to some persons, there cannot be any discrimination in respect of the petitioner alone. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in respect of those persons who have retired prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.77, since right had accrued in them under G.O.Ms.No.39, the services rendered by them as Part Time Panchayat Clerks should be taken into account and 50% of the services should be counted for the purpose of pension. This is in tune with the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a course alone will avoid discrimination.” The same point has also been discussed by this Court in WP.No.24465 of 2005. It is useful to extract the following paragraphs of the said order:- “6.It is contended before this Court that as per the statutory rule and GO.77, the service rendered by the part time panchayat clerk shall not be taken into account for the purpose of pension. Accordingly, GO.39 stands modified under GO.77. 7. It is useful to extract the following paragraphs of the said order:- “6.It is contended before this Court that as per the statutory rule and GO.77, the service rendered by the part time panchayat clerk shall not be taken into account for the purpose of pension. Accordingly, GO.39 stands modified under GO.77. 7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would meet out the objection raised on the side of the respondents on the following two grounds: (i) when GO.39 is intended to benefit few persons, there cannot be any discrimination in respect of the petitioners who are similarly placed and (ii)as per Clause 4(c) of GO.77 the right accrued to the persons, who retired prior to the issuance of GO.77 shall not stand affected by the subsequent GO. This Court finds greater force in the argument so advanced on the side of the petitioner. 8. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9...................... 10. Hence, the respondents are directed to count 50% of the service rendered by the deceased first petitioner and the 3rd petitioner as part time Panchayat clerk and the subsequent service rendered by them in full time regular employee for the purpose of pension and grant pension accordingly within a period of twelve weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The benefit of this order may also be extended to the second petitioner/legal heirs as and when they approach the respondents in this regard.” 9. Taking note of the rival contention of both parties, I am of the view that the writ petitions will have to be allowed and the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the clause 4(b) alone of the G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12.7.2013 depriving the benefits to the petitioners is declared as illegal. The concerned authority is directed to calculate and issue orders granting pension and other benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said order from the concerned authority, the 5th respondent is directed to implement the same within a period of one month thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 2. The learned counsel for either side submit that similar orders may be passed in these writ petitions as well, since similar issues are involved. 3. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 2. The learned counsel for either side submit that similar orders may be passed in these writ petitions as well, since similar issues are involved. 3. Accordingly, following the order dated 27.6.2014, these writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.32579, 34375 and 34395 of 2013 are also allowed in the same terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.