JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the record of the First Respondent in proceedings G.O.No.140 Tourism and Culture (part-1) dated 07.08.2009 and the consequential order of the second respondent in proceeding No.6304/A1/2006 dated 30.09.2009 and quash the same in so far not granting monetary benefits to the petitioner from joining date of 01.09.1997 instead of 31.05.2008.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the First Respondent in G.O.No.140, Tourism and Culture (part-1) Department dated 07.08.2009 and the consequential order of the second respondent in proceeding No.6304/A1/2006 dated 30.09.2009 and quash the same in so far as not granting monetary benefits to the petitioner from the date of joining i.e. 01.09.1997 instead of 31.05.2008. 2. The petitioner was serving as Assistant Director of Tamil Department at Madurai since 1990 and consequent to the creation of the New post of Deputy Director in the office of the second respondent, by virtue of G.O.No.223, dated 30.08.1997, the petitioner was temporarily appointed to the post of Deputy Director of Department of Art and Culture and joined on the forenoon of 01.09.1997. According to the petitioner, during his tenure in the temporary post of Deputy Director, the salary for the said post was not paid to him but he was paid the salary attached to the post of Assistant Director, which the petitioner earlier held. According to the petitioner, he applied to the post of Deputy Director prior to framing the Adhoc rules by the respondents and therefore there was no question of relaxation under the Adhoc rules for regularising the petitioner to the post. 3. The second respondent recommended to the Government vide order dated 06.09.2006 to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his joining that is forenoon of 01.09.1997. The first respondent, on the basis of the said recommendation, regularized the post of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1997 but instructed to give monetary benefit from 31.05.2008 only. As the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2008 he was paid the monetary benefits only for one date, though he assumed office as early as on 01.09.1997. The first respondent, on the basis of the said recommendation, regularized the post of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1997 but instructed to give monetary benefit from 31.05.2008 only. As the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2008 he was paid the monetary benefits only for one date, though he assumed office as early as on 01.09.1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the second respondent to the first respondent and the same was rejected by order dated 24.04.2012 on the ground that though the petitioner was eligible for regularization from 01.09.1997, as he did not possess the necessary qualification in Account Test, which is meant for the said post, he was not given the monetary benefit from 01.09.1997. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. The respondents filed a counter stating that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Director in the Art and Culture Department on temporary basis. The second respondent had sent proposal to the first respondent to frame Adhoc rules for the temporary post. The Adhoc rules were framed vide G.O.(Ms).235, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 06.09.2006 for the post of Deputy Director in the Directorate of Art and Culture Department. The rules were made applicable with effect from 06.05.1997. The method of appointment and the Educational qualifications were also prescribed in the above rules for the post of Deputy Director of Art and Culture Department. Adhoc Rules 3 and 4 are extracted here under. Rule 3 Method of Appointment: (i) by promotion from among the holders of the post of Assistant Director in the Department of Art and Culture; (or) (ii) by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the post of Deputy Director of other Departments, if no qualified candidates are available for appointment by promotion; (or) (iii) by transfer from any other class or category. Rule 4 Educational Qualification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post unless he possesses a Bachelor Degree from any recognized University, and must have passed the following Departmental tests namely:- (a) Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual; (b) The Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part I, and (c) The Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part II. 5. Rule 4 Educational Qualification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post unless he possesses a Bachelor Degree from any recognized University, and must have passed the following Departmental tests namely:- (a) Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual; (b) The Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part I, and (c) The Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part II. 5. It is the case of the respondents that since the petitioner had not passed the Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part I and Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part II, as stipulated in the Adhoc rules, his services were regularised after relaxation of the said rule without monetary benefit. Though the second respondent had sent the proposal to the first respondent for regularising the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as Deputy Director on 01.09.199, the same was not accepted by the Government because of the aforesaid. The further contention of the respondent is that based on the Government order, the second respondent sanctioned the revised scales of pay with monetary benefits from 31.05.2008 namely the date of superannuation of the petitioner. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the petitioner's services were regularised by the impugned order from 01.09.1997, then automatically the monetary benefits should also have been sanctioned. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Director even before the framing of Adhoc rules and therefore, there was no question of relaxation of qualification under the Adhoc rules. 7. In contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 06.09.2006, it is clearly stated that the rules shall be deemed to have come into force on 06.05.1997 and the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for the post of Deputy Director on 01.09.1997 and therefore the Adhoc rules will be applicable to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that there is justification for denial of monetary benefits from the date of appointment to the post in as much as the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for the said post. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the counsels and I perused the records. 9. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent dated 07.08.2009 denying him monetary benefits from the date of his appointment as Deputy Director i.e. 01.09.1997. 10. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the counsels and I perused the records. 9. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent dated 07.08.2009 denying him monetary benefits from the date of his appointment as Deputy Director i.e. 01.09.1997. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the Adhoc rules are not applicable to the petitioner, which cannot be accepted for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 06.09.2006, under which the Adhoc rules for the temporary post of Deputy Director in the Directorate of Art and Culture Department were framed, clearly stipulate that the rules are deemed to have come into force on 06.05.1997. The petitioner was admittedly appointed to the post of Deputy Director on temporary basis in the Forenoon of 01.09.1997 and therefore the petitioner cannot claim that the Adhoc rules were not applicable to him. The petitioner admittedly does not possess the qualification in as much as the petitioner did not comply with rules 4(b) and (c) of the Adhoc rules. Though second respondent in his proposal dated 06.09.2006, recommended for the regularisation of the petitioner's services from the date of his initial appointment he also noted that the petitioner passed the Tamil Nadu office Manual and Accounts Test for Executive Officer, but did not pass the Accounts Test for the Sub-ordinate Officer Part I and Sub-ordinate Officer Part II as stipulated in the Adhoc rules namely, Rule 4(b) and (c). The recommendation in the proposal was not accepted by the Government and the petitioner was not given regularisation of his service from the date of his initial appointment. The respondents, considering the fact that the petitioner did not possess the educational qualification required for the post from the date of his appointment till the date of his superannuation, thought it fit to deny the monetary benefits. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner has not challenged the Adhoc rules even though the rules are made effective from 06.05.1997. In my considered view the respondents are justified in denying the petitioner the monetary benefits from the date of his initial appointment while relaxing the educational qualification. Even otherwise the respondents by relaxing the educational qualification have ensured that the petitioner's pension and other benefits are secured. In the light of the above, I find no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.