ORDER : The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as B.T.Grade Middle School Head Master on 09.03.1973 in Government Adi Dravidar Welfare Middle School and served as a Middle School Head Master for 8 years. Thereafter, she was transferred and posted as B.T. Assistant in the same Middle School Head Master pay Scale and served for 7 years and subsequently posted as B.T. Grade Warden for 11 years in the same unit of Adi Dravidar Welfare High Schools and Hostels. Then, after putting up 11 years of service, the petitioner has again posted as B.T. Middle School Head Master and worked for 8 years in the same post. After a long period of service, she was promoted as Head Master of Adi Dravidar Welfare High School on 02.02.2007 and continued till her retirement of 30.09.2009 in the same unit. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that she was awarded B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master pay scale while she was posted as B.T. Assistant and B.T. Grade Warden and thereafter she was awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade by counting her B.T. Assistant Service and B.T. Grade Warden Service. Subsequently from the year 1999 she was awarded special grade in B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master Post and even after her promotion as High School Head Master, she was awarded one notional increment along with the pay scale of Middle School Head Master which was already received by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has given her service details as follows: S.No. Designation Period Period of Service Pay scale Remarks 1. B.T.Grade Middle School Head Master, ADW Middle School, Elathur 09.03.1979 to 30.04.1979 1 month 22 days B.T. Mid. HM scale of pay 2. B.T.Grade Middle School Head Master, ADW Middle School, Arakonam 01.06.1979 to 14.08.1980 1 year 2 months 13 days B.T.Grade middle H.M. scale of pay B.T. Mid. HM scale of pay 3. B.T. Assistant Govt. ADW High School, Arakonam (Both boys and girls) 11.08.1980 to 28.07.1987 6 years 11 months 14 days B.T.Grade middle H.M. scale of pay Both Mid. HM and B.T. Asst. and bearing same scale of pay till 31.05.1988 4. B.T.Warden Govt. ADW Girls College Hostel, Walajah. 29.07.1987 to 24.12.1998 11 years 4 months 24 days B.T.Grade middle H.M. scale of pay B.T. Mid. HM and B.T. Warden same scale of pay 5. HM and B.T. Asst. and bearing same scale of pay till 31.05.1988 4. B.T.Warden Govt. ADW Girls College Hostel, Walajah. 29.07.1987 to 24.12.1998 11 years 4 months 24 days B.T.Grade middle H.M. scale of pay B.T. Mid. HM and B.T. Warden same scale of pay 5. B.T.Grade Middle School Head Master 24.12.1998 to 01.02.2007 8 years 1 month 8 days B.T.Grade middle H.M. scale of pay B.T.Mid. HM scale of pay 6. Head Master of High School 02.02.2007 to 30.09.2009 2 years 7 months 28 days B.T.Grade middle H.M. scale of pay One notional increment for HM promotion 30 year 3 month 29 4. Since the petitioner's service in B.T. Assistant was from 11.08.1980 to 28.07.1987 i.e. prior to 01.06.1988 bearing the same scale of pay of B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master, served in the post of B.T. Assistant on Administrative transfer from B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master with pay protection is entitled to count for Selection Grade in her original post of B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master. She further stated that while she was transferred to the post of B.T. Grade Warden to Government Adi Dravidar Welfare Girls College Hostel, Walaja from 29.07.1987 to 24.12.1998 she was provided the Middle School Head Master pay protection and while she is also entitled to count the said service along with Middle School Head Master for Special Grade. After serving as B.T. Assistant and B.T. Warden, she was again posted as B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master for 8 years from 24.12.1998 to 01.02.2007 in the same unit at Government Adi Dravidar Welfare Middle School, Ammanoor. While serving as Middle School Head Master second time her earlier services in B.T. Assistant and B.T. Warden were counted for the purpose of Special Grade and awarded special Grade in B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master post with effect from 1999 onwards. 5. While serving as Middle School Head Master second time her earlier services in B.T. Assistant and B.T. Warden were counted for the purpose of Special Grade and awarded special Grade in B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master post with effect from 1999 onwards. 5. The petitioner further states that when her retirement pension proposal was sent to the first respondent/the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, based on the last pay drawn pay scale of Special Grade B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master, but the said pension proposal was returned with a remarks saying that this petitioner has not eligible for special grade in B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master pay by counting B.T. Assistant service as well as B.T. Warden/Matren service with further direction directed to revise her pay from 01.06.1989 to till reaching her superannuation in the said order was passed as per the order dated 01.04.2010. 6. The said order dated 01.04.2010 was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.20433 of 2010 before this Court with a prayer to quash the said impugned order dated 01.04.2010. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.07.2010 and pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks. 7. Based on the order of this Court dated 13.09.2010 in the above writ petition, the first respondent had passed the 2nd and 3rd impugned orders in Lr.No.AG (A&E)/Legal Cell/W.P.No.20433/2010/1740/201833 dated 21.01.2011 and PEN 9/111/20901582/RTD/10-11/ADK dated 27.01.2011 and both the impugned orders 2 and 3 challenged the present writ petition given the same reason, which was already given in the impugned order dated 01.04.2010 and rejected the petitioner's proposal based on the petitioner's last pay drawn scale of pay of special Grade B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master pay Scale. Challenging the above two orders dated 21.01.2011 and 27.01.2011, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the above 3 orders and pray this Court calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned orders (i) PEN9/I/10901582/RTD/09.10/ADK/295 dated 01.04.2010, (ii) Lr.No.AG (A&E) Legal Cell/W.P.20433/2010/1740/201833 dated 21.01.2011 and (iii) PEN 9/III/20901582/RTD/10-11/ADK dated 27.01.2011 passed by the First Respondent herein and quash the said three impugned orders and further direct the First Respondent to accept the pension proposal of the petitioner based on the last pay drawn pay scale of Special Grade Middle School Head Master pay scale and award all the consequential benefits. 8. On behalf of the first respondent, the Deputy Accountant General (Pension) has filed counter affidavit and denying all the allegations set out in the petition. 9. The pension proposals and Service Register of the petitioner has forwarding as per the letter dated 12.11.2010, the first respondent has passed a speaking order on 21.01.2011 and stated that her eligibility for Selection Grade in Headmistress Middle School post and her ineligibility for Special Grade in that post. The second respondent by a letter dated 27.01.2011 requested the first respondent to refix the pay of the petitioner in the eligible scale of pay and to forward proposals for admitting the pensionary benefits and the second respondent also requested that provisionally re-employment pay to be paid to the petitioner. The first respondent also states that neither the second respondent nor the petitioner took any initiative to forward the proposals to the first respondent, the petitioner had chosen to file this writ petition challenging the above 3 impugned orders. 10. The first respondent states that the petitioner had served as Headmistress Middle School for 1 year 4 months and 5 days upto the year 1980 and thereafter from 24.12.1998 only she served as Middle School Headmistress upto 01.02.2007 and was promoted as Headmistress High School on 02.02.2007 and retired on 30.09.2009. Out of the total length of service, she served as Headmistress Middle School service for 10 years. As per the rules, the petitioner has served in the said post for 20 years, then only she was eligible for the special grade. 11. Out of the total length of service, she served as Headmistress Middle School service for 10 years. As per the rules, the petitioner has served in the said post for 20 years, then only she was eligible for the special grade. 11. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.33 Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 04.04.2012 and as per the above G.O. those who have served as Headmaster Middle School on 01.06.1988, their earlier service prior to 01.06.1988 can be counted for the Special Grade in Head Master post, the petitioner was only a B.T. Warden in the Hostel as on 01.06.1988. Therefore, this Government Order is not eligible to her. To prove her case, the petitioner has cited the cases of four persons alleging that they have been granted Special Grade in Middle School Headmaster Post though they were not holding the post of Headmaster Middle School on 01.10.1970. In this regard, the petitioner has not provided the Pension Payment Order Numbers and the same was called for from the second respondent and on receipt of details, the first respondent would be initiated action as per Rules. The first respondent further states that as per the latest orders 01.10.1970 criterion has become defunct and the fresh criterion is that one should have been Headmaster Middle School on 01.06.1988. Though the petitioner had also cited G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 14.08.2009, G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 12.07.2010, G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 19.06.2012 of the School Education Department. It is stated that for grant of Selection/Special Grade in Headmaster Middle School post by counting the service in lower post prior to 01.06.1988 also in respect of those who have served as Headmaster Middle School on 01.06.1988 and served as such thereafter upto the year 1994 and the said criterion has been spelt out in the table in paragraph-4 of the G.O. 146. The petitioner was not holding the post of Headmistress Middle School on 01.06.1988 and not retired before 30.09.1994. But, on the other hand the petitioner was working as B.T. Assistant/Warden from 1980 to 1998 and she has become Headmistress Middle School on 24.12.1998 only. Therefore, the respondents states that these Government Orders are not applicable to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner was not holding the post of Headmistress Middle School on 01.06.1988 and not retired before 30.09.1994. But, on the other hand the petitioner was working as B.T. Assistant/Warden from 1980 to 1998 and she has become Headmistress Middle School on 24.12.1998 only. Therefore, the respondents states that these Government Orders are not applicable to the petitioner. 12. The first respondent also states in the counter that as per G.O.No.33 dated 04.04.2012, the benefits of counting service rendered before 01.06.1988 has been extended in respect of those Headmaster Middle School who were in position on 01.06.1988 and got specific orders of the Court as on the date of G.O. i.e. 04.04.2012. The specific G.O. also have the condition that one should have been Headmaster Middle School on 01.06.1988 served as such and retired as Headmaster Middle School has been retained. Only the date applicable in School Education Department i.e. 30.09.1994 has been extended upto 04.04.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has not entitled to the benefits to the Government Orders cited by her since she was not Headmistress Middle School as on 01.06.1988. Therefore, the first respondent states that this respondent is prepared to issue authorization orders in Selection Grade Headmistress Middle School post for which the petitioner is legally entitled to within a week on receipt of proposals and Service Book from the second respondent and prayed this Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 13. Heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned senior counsel for Mrs.M.Srividhya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the second respondent. 14. The learned senior counsel Mr.R.Singaravelan appearing for the petitioner argued before this Court that the order made by the first respondent rejecting the pension proposal based on the Special Grade Middle School Headmaster vide order dated 01.04.2010, 21.01.2011 and 27.01.2011, directing revision of pay from 01.06.1989 to 30.09.2009 for 20 years by reducing the petitioner's pay and pension retrospectively are contrary to law, illegal, untenable and unsustainable either in law or on facts. 15. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also states that the B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster with the pay protection of her category worked in the post of B.T. Assistant and B.T. Grade Warden by way of transfer within the Unit for the administrative exigency, was awarded the Special Grade Middle School Headmaster pay scale in 1999 by counting her total service served in B.T. Assistant and B.T. Warden. He also argued that B.T. Assistant category from 11.08.1980 to 28.07.1987 falling before the cut off date 01.06.1988, before the 5th pay commission period and during the said service period both the post of B.T. Assistant and B.T. Warden, Middle School Headmaster were bearing same scale of pay. After promotion as Headmaster of the High School at the verge of retirement, she was awarded one Notional increment for her promotion along with her Special Grade Middle School Headmaster pay and she was retired from service on 30.09.2009 with the Special Grade B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster Pay Scale as the last pay drawn pay scale. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get pension based on her last pay drawn by following Rule 31 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978, which was held by this Court in a reported judgment in 2012 (1) MLJ 286 . 16. The learned senior counsel also pointing out before this Court that similarly placed persons like the petitioner, who is not holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 01.10.1970 were awarded Special Grade Middle School Headmaster pay and the first respondent without making any objection had admitted their pension proposal based on the last drawn pay scale of Special Grade Middle School Headmaster pay scale and awarded the consequential pension based on the Special Grade Middle School Headmaster pay. To prove the contention, the details were given as follows:- (1) Thiru.K.S.Sundararajan, Tutor/Warden Government Boys Hostel, Kalavai, Vellore District retired not holding the post of Middle School Headmaster on 01.10.70. (2) Thiru.K.Duraikannu, Headmaster, Adi-Dravidar Primary School, Krishnapuram, Arcot (T.K.), Vellore District. (not holding post of Middle School Headmaster on 02.10.1970). (3) Thiru.M.Jeganathan, Primary School Headmaster, Adi-Dravidar Primary School, Sakramallur, Arcot (T.K), Vellore District (not holding post of Middle School Headmaster on 02.10.70). (2) Thiru.K.Duraikannu, Headmaster, Adi-Dravidar Primary School, Krishnapuram, Arcot (T.K.), Vellore District. (not holding post of Middle School Headmaster on 02.10.1970). (3) Thiru.M.Jeganathan, Primary School Headmaster, Adi-Dravidar Primary School, Sakramallur, Arcot (T.K), Vellore District (not holding post of Middle School Headmaster on 02.10.70). (4) Thiru.P.Dhanaraj, A.E.E.O., District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Office, Vellore-9 not holding the post of Middle School Headmaster on 02.10.70, was admitted Special Grade Middle School H.M. pay by AG in order Pen 9/V/D17/494/RE/98-99/1864 dated 13.05.98. The above said 5 persons were not holding the post of Middle School Headmaster on 01.10.1970 were awarded Special Grade Middle School Headmaster and were awarded the Pension based on the Special Grade Middle School H.M. Pay. So, the petitioner who is similarly placed person is entitled to get similar benefit of fixation pension based on Special Grade Middle School H.M.Pay. 17. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned senior counsel also argued that an identical issue related to one K.Chandran, claim was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that he did not hold the post of Middle School Headmaster on 02.10.1970 duly citing the same reason as is stated in the impugned order of the petitioner's case. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the said K.Chandran had approached this Court and filed writ petition in W.P.No.2725 of 2007 and this Court by order dated 28.10.2011 set aside the said order of rejection of said K.Chandran by given direction to the first respondent to grant pension and other benefits. The said judgment is squarely applicable to this petitioner case also. 18. As per G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 14.08.2009, G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 12.07.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 19.06.2012, this petitioner is entitled to get Special Grade in B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster category by counting their lower category services like Secondary Grade Assistant, Elementary School Headmaster Services. The said G.O.s are squarely applicable to the petitioner's case also. Therefore, the petitioner sought for quashing the above rejection/return of the pension proposal of 3 impugned orders are totally Non-Application of mind and all the 3 are liable to be set aside. The petitioner also submitted that this Court has directed to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210 School Education Department dated 14.08.2009 to the similarly placed persons like the petitioner in W.P.No.6980 of 2007 Judgment dated 15.09.2009, W.P.No.41709, 43985, 47266 and 47311 of 2006 judgment dated 19.01.2011, W.P.No.17220 of 2010, W.P.No.17221 of 2010 judgment dated 05.08.2011 and W.P.No.11006 of 2002 judgment dated 24.04.2012. This petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Special Grade in the B.T. Grade Middle School Head Master category in 1999 onwards by counting her B.T. Assistant Service and B.T. Grade Warden Service. 19. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned senior counsel also produced three judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1. 1989 (1) SCC 764 (H.L.Trehan and Others v. Union of India and Others) 2.1968 (1) SLR 385 (Gopalakrishna Naidu v. State of M.P.) 3. 1980 (4) SCC 379 (S.L.Kappor V. Jag Mohan and Ors.) He has also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reported in 1968 (1) SLR 385 (Gopalakrishna Naidu v. State of M.P.) has held that when an order affects the employee financially it must be passed after an objective consideration and after proper assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances of the cases. He also cited another judgment in 1980 (4) SCC 379 (S.L.Kappor V. Jag Mohan). Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents are estopped from refixing the pay and reducing the pay retrospectively for 20 years that too after her retirement by way of impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that this petitioner has not entitled for the above benefits since the petitioner has not worked as Headmistress Middle School on 01.06.1988, but the petitioner was posted as Headmistress Middle School subsequently only on 24.12.1998 and served upto 01.02.2007. Therefore, the petitioner has not entitled for the above benefits and they prayed for dismissal of the above writ petition. 21. Heard the arguments of both sides and perusal of the documents and judgments produced before this Court. 22. This Court passed several orders directing the first respondent that similarly placed persons as one of the petitioner given benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 12.07.2010 in respect of their claim of awarding Special Grade in the cadre of Middle School Headmaster. Therefore, I fully agreed that the claim of the petitioner is absolutely no legal bar for extending the same benefits to this petitioner. As per the above orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, since there should not be any discriminate in the similarly placed persons in respect of the grant of relief in the above said orders. Therefore, in the above circumstances the 3 impugned orders viz. As per the above orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, since there should not be any discriminate in the similarly placed persons in respect of the grant of relief in the above said orders. Therefore, in the above circumstances the 3 impugned orders viz. (i) PEN9/I/10901582/RTD/09.10/ADK/295 dated 01.04.2010, (ii) Lr.No.AG (A&E) Legal Cell/W.P.20433/2010/1740/201833 dated 21.01.2011 and (iii) PEN 9/III/20901582/RTD/10-11/ADK dated 27.01.2011 passed by the First Respondent herein are set aside and the writ petition has to be allowed. 23. Therefore, I am inclined to pass the following orders: (a) The impugned orders viz., (i) PEN9/I/10901582/RTD/ 09.10/ADK/295 dated 01.04.2010, (ii) Lr.No.AG (A&E) Legal Cell/W.P.20433/2010/1740/201833 dated 21.01.2011 and (iii) PEN 9/III/20901582/RTD/10-11/ADK dated 27.01.2011 passed by the First Respondent herein are set aside; (b) The first respondent is directed to accept the pension proposal of the petitioner based on the last drawn pay scale of Special Grade Middle School Head Master and award all the consequential benefits to the petitioner. (c) The said exercise could be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.