Judgment :- (Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the orders, dated 05.02.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.500 & 501 of 2014, on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.500 & 501 of 2014, which were dismissed by the common order dated 05.02.2018. 2. The appellants prayed for setting aside the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.06.2013 and the consequential order, dated 16.12.2013 and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to count the service rendered by the appellants from 05.04.1990 to 31.05.1994 and 07.03.1994 to 13.09.2001 respectively for fixation of pay, gratuity, leave pay, pensionary benefits and other benefits to them as per G.O.(ID) No.125, dated 13.04.2010. 3. The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1382 of 2019, petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.501 of 2014, was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher in English in the fifth respondent School on 07.03.1994 in a vacancy caused due to the resignation of the existing incumbent. On 01.06.1994, the Government sanctioned grant-in-aid only to five posts and in respect of P.G.Assistant (English), grant-in-aid was not sanctioned. From 13.09.2001, the Government released grant-in-aid in respect of the remaining three posts and pursuant to which, the appointment of the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1382 of 2019 was approved with effect from 13.09.2001. He relied upon two Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 09.01.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 30.01.1987, wherein, the Government regularised the period during which, those Teachers were served when there was no grant-in-aid from the Government. However, the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 12.12.1999, revoked G.O.Ms.No. 18, dated 09.01.1997 and held that the period prior to 01.06.1997 cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of pay or terminal benefits, but, it can be considered only for the purpose of promotion. 4. It is further submitted that Clauses 1 to 3 of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 12.12.1999, were challenged before this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.10758 and 10759 of 2008 and the said writ petitions were dismissed. However, the writ appeals filed against those orders in W.A.(MD) Nos.291 and 292 of 2008 were allowed by a common Judgment dated 26.06.2008 and the Clauses 1 to 3 of G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 12.12.1999, were struck down. Therefore, it is submitted that pursuant to the Judgment in the said writ appeals, G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 09.01.1997 became operational. However, the writ appeals filed against those orders in W.A.(MD) Nos.291 and 292 of 2008 were allowed by a common Judgment dated 26.06.2008 and the Clauses 1 to 3 of G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 12.12.1999, were struck down. Therefore, it is submitted that pursuant to the Judgment in the said writ appeals, G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 09.01.1997 became operational. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Government against the said Judgment before Honourable Supreme Court was dismissed and the orders were implemented by the Government vide G.O.(1D) No.125, dated 13.04.2010. The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1382 of 2019 having come to know of the said Government Order, submitted a representation to the respondents, on 28.09.2011, requesting to extent the same benefits to him. Since there was no response to the said representation, he filed W.P.(MD) No.9819 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 19.07.2012 directing the first respondent to dispose the appellant's representation in accordance with law. However, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 16.12.2013, refused to count the services rendered by the appellant for the period from 07.03.1994 to 13.09.2001 for fixation of pay, revision of pay and gratuity, leave pay, pensionary benefits and other benefits, on the ground that G.O.No.143 is not applicable and that the Government is taking steps to cancel G.O.(1D) No.125, dated 13.04.2010 and further, since the appellant was appointed in a nonsanctioned post, the period cannot be counted for pay fixation and pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1382 of 2019 has filed the writ petition. 5. The case of the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1383 of 2019, petitioner in W.P.No.500 of 2014, is also identical, except that he was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher in the fifth respondent School on 05.04.1990, in a sanctioned post. However, the Government had not released the grant-in-aid immediately and the respondents approved his appointment on 01.06.1994 upon the grant-in-aid being released. In all other aspects, the case as projected by the appellant is identical to that of the other appellant. 6. Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the fifth respondent School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School and eight posts were sanctioned subject to the condition that no grant will be sanctioned for the period of three years for those posts. 6. Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the fifth respondent School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School and eight posts were sanctioned subject to the condition that no grant will be sanctioned for the period of three years for those posts. The subjects, for which posts have been sanctioned by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 21.09.1989, are Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History, Economics, Commerce and Accountancy. On 01.06.1994, the Government released grant for five posts and for the remaining three posts, grant was not released and on 01.06.1994 and 13.09.2001, consequent upon which, the appointment of the appellants were approved. The case of the appellants is that they having been appointed in the sanctioned posts are entitled to count the said service for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits and they have not claimed any salary for the said period. 7. Further, it is submitted that the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 12.12.1999, stating that the period of service in a self- finance post cannot be counted for pay fixation and pensionary benefits and the said Government Order was struck down by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court and the Judgment was also confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. 8. It is further submitted that the Teachers, who are the petitioners in those writ petitions, have now been granted the benefit. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the second respondent dated 10.06.2013 and 16.12.2013 were liable to be interfered with. 9. Ms.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the fifth respondent School is a Non- Minority Institution governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation ) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. The School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School with a specific condition that no grant-in-aid will be given for three years and the posts will have to be kept under Self-Financing Scheme i.e. the Management has to pay the salary for those Teachers and on completion of three years period, grant-in-aid was released and the posts were approved. Therefore, it is contended that the past services rendered by the appellants in a self-finance post cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of pay, pension and other benefits. 10. Therefore, it is contended that the past services rendered by the appellants in a self-finance post cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of pay, pension and other benefits. 10. It is further submitted that the Government Orders, which have been referred to by the appellants, cannot be relied on as they were all prior to the appellants being appointed in a self-finance post. Further, it is submitted that if the period during which the appellants have worked in a selffinance post is to be recokoned for calculating the monetary benefits, then the purpose of issuing the orders, dated 21.09.1989 with a specific condition, would loose its value and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 11. The learned Writ Court held that the services rendered by the appellants when the posts were self-financed posts are admittedly the posts, which were not sanctioned. Furthermore, a declaration has been given by the Correspondent of the School that they will not claim any grant for the Higher Secondary School for three years and the orders of appointment are also clear that the candidates will be paid salary from the Government grant only at a later point of time and not earlier than three years. Further, the Writ Court held that the Judgments relied on by the appellants in W.A.(MD) Nos.291 and 292 of 2008, dated 26.06.2008, cannot be pressed into service as a bogus Government Order was produced in the said case for obtaining the Judgment and this having been established by the Department in the subsequent identical cases, which were dismissed by the Court. With these reasons, the learned Single Bench held that no relief can be granted to the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us by way of the present appeals. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants initially reiterated the grounds canvassed before the learned Writ Court, which were reiterated in the memorandum of grounds of appeals and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 13. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us by way of the present appeals. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants initially reiterated the grounds canvassed before the learned Writ Court, which were reiterated in the memorandum of grounds of appeals and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 13. Firstly, we need to point out that the order passed by the second respondent on 29.06.1989 upgrading the Aided High School into a Higher Secondary School was a provisional permission on the strength of the specific declaraion given by the Correspondent that he will not ask for any grant for the Higher Secondary School for three years and having opened a joint account in the name of Headmaster and the District Educational Officer / Inspectress of Girls School duly remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to meet out the expenditure towards payment of salary to the Higher Secondary Staff. 14. On 21.09.1989, eight posts were sanctioned by the Director of School Education, wherein it was clearly held that no grant will be paid to the said posts for a period of three years, however, the School has to strictly follow the provisions of the Act and the Rules and there should not be any deviation in this regard. These orders bind the Management of the fifth respondent - School, which appointed the appellants herein. The Management has not challenged those orders nor sought for any relief in respect of the appellants, who were the Teachers. In such circumstances, it would be rather doubtful as to how the appellants can maintain the writ petitions questioning the orders, which were never disputed by the Management of the fifth respondent – School, which appointed them. This would have been a good ground to nonsuit the appellants to any relief in the writ petitions. 15. In such circumstances, it would be rather doubtful as to how the appellants can maintain the writ petitions questioning the orders, which were never disputed by the Management of the fifth respondent – School, which appointed them. This would have been a good ground to nonsuit the appellants to any relief in the writ petitions. 15. After arguing for a considerable length of time, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants having realised that he is not in a strong “wicket”, made an alternate submission by stating that admittedly, the appellants were appointed in the sanctioned posts, which were sanctioned in the year 1989, though grant was subsequently released and in terms of the decision in the case of Government of India vs. K.Sakthivel and others [ (2018) 3 LLJ 116 , 50% of the service rendered by the appellants should be counted by applying Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which reads as follows: “11(4) Half of the service rendered under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 in respect of Government employees absorbed in regular service before 1st April 2003 shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the following conditions, namely: (i) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time employment; (ii) Service rendered shall be on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis paid on monthly basis and subsequently absorbed in regular service under the State Government; (iii) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be followed by absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003 without a break.” 16. In terms of the above Rule, half of the service rendered under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 01.01.1961 in respect of Government employees absorbed in regular service before 01.04.2003 shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service subject to the candidates fulfilling the conditions stipulated in Clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 11(4) of the said Rules. The said Rule can have no application to the case of the appellants as admittedly, they are not Government employees and they are not in any non-provincialised service in the State Government nor receiving consolidated pay to work in a post in the State Government or on daily wage basis under the State Government. Therefore, Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1979 can have no application to the case of the appellants. 17. The learned Single Bench rightly took note of the decision in W.P.(MD) No.4494 of 2009, dated 16.08.2012. The appellants having been fully aware of the fact that they are being appointed in a post though sanctioned will not be eligible for grant-in-aid for a period of three years and having accepted the said employment and functioning and after the appointment was approved in the year 2012-2013, have undertaken this exercise by stating that the period during which they had worked for which no grant was sanctioned should also be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the length of service and accordingly, for the purpose of computing the monitory and pensionary benefits, we are of the clear view that neither the basis on which the writ petitions were filed nor the alternate submission, which was made before us, is legally acceptable nor tenable. 18. For the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the orders passed in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ appeals fail and they are dismissed. No costs.