JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to re-fix the petitioner''s scale of pay as Rs.8000-272-13500 instead of Rs.5900-200-9900 as on 01.01.1996 and subsequent increments and refix his pension and award monetary benefits to him with effect from 01.03.2017 as per G.O.Ms.No.62, (Finance (CMPC) Department), dated 09.03.2015, on par with similarly placed persons.) 1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to re-fix the petitioner''s scale of pay as Rs.8000-272-13500 instead of Rs.5900-200-9900 as on 01.01.1996 and subsequent increments and refix his pension and award monetary benefits to him with effect from 01.03.2017 as per G.O.Ms.No.62 Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 09.03.2015, on par with similarly placed persons. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the Government High School, Eraviputhoor, Kanyakumari District on 24.01.1972. The petitioner was transferred to the Meenakshipuram, Kanyakumari District, on 01.01.1982 and attained superannuation on 31.07.2002. The petitioner was placed under the scale of pay equal to the Secondary Grade teachers in Middle Schools and rendered service of 29 years. On completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner was granted Selection Grade of pay with effect from 15.02.1983. On completion of 20 years of service, the petitioner was placed on Special Grade of pay with effect from 15.02.1993 on par with Secondary Grade Teachers. Prior to 01.06.1988, the scale of pay for the Secondary Grade Teachers / Physical Education Teachers i.e., Special Teachers, and the Headmasters of Primary Schools were identical i.e., Rs.610-1075/-. Persons who were serving as Headmaster (Primary School) would be given a small additional sum known as "Special Pay". 3. Under the 5th Pay Commission, the State Government brought the Primary School Headmaster as promoted post with separate pay scale i.e. Rs. 1400-2600/- with effect from 01.06.1988. Secondary Grade Teachers / Physical Education Teachers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-. The government granted the benefits in G.O.Ms.No.216 (Finance (Pay Cell) Department), dated 22.03.1993. However, it was implemented for some persons only. The State Government took the policy decision and awarded revised scale of pay, vide G.O.Ms.No.62, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 09.03.2015 and refixed the scale of pay to the Secondary Grade Teachers and the Physical Education Teachers as Rs.8000-275-13500/- instead of Rs.5900-200-9900/- as on 01.01.1996. However, it was implemented for some persons only. The State Government took the policy decision and awarded revised scale of pay, vide G.O.Ms.No.62, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 09.03.2015 and refixed the scale of pay to the Secondary Grade Teachers and the Physical Education Teachers as Rs.8000-275-13500/- instead of Rs.5900-200-9900/- as on 01.01.1996. As per G.O.No.62, dated 09.03.2015, the respondents gave subsequent increments on 01.10.1996, 01.10.1997, 01.10.1998 and 01.10.1999 as Rs.8275/-, Rs.8550/-, Rs.8825/- and Rs.9100/- respectively and awarded the same to various Secondary Grade Teachers and Physical Education Teachers. However, it was not implemented to the petitioner inadvertently. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 04.12.2018, requesting to re-fix. The petitioner approached the Chief Educational Officer to refix. The respondents did not refix the same. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is seeking to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.216 (Finance (Pay Cell) Department), dated 22.03.1993. The same cannot be granted, since the issue was considered by the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court wherein it is clearly stated any person filing writ petition on or after 09.12.2016 are not entitled to the benefits granted under G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993. Moreover, the petitioner has slept over all these years, stale and belated claims cannot be entertained. The G.O.Ms.No.62, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 09.03.2015, was issued by the Government to the persons who are granted benefits under G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993. Since the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993, consequently, G.O.Ms.No.62, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 09.03.2015, is not applicable to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was granted selection grade and special grade in the post of Physical Education Teacher. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to fix the selection grade and special grade in the post of Headmaster. Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 6. It is seen that prior to 01.06.1988 both the Primary School Headmaster post and the Secondary Grade Post was interchangeable. Under the 5th Pay Commission, the State Government brought the Primary School Headmaster as promoted post with separate pay scale i.e. Rs.1400-2600/- with effect from 01.06.1988. 6. It is seen that prior to 01.06.1988 both the Primary School Headmaster post and the Secondary Grade Post was interchangeable. Under the 5th Pay Commission, the State Government brought the Primary School Headmaster as promoted post with separate pay scale i.e. Rs.1400-2600/- with effect from 01.06.1988. Secondary Grade Teachers / Physical Education Teachers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-. Hence the employees started praying to calculate the secondary grade service along with HM service and grant selection grade pay in the post of HM. 7. The State Government initially accepted the prayer and directed the Director of Elementary Education to reckon the services of the Teachers, rendered in both the posts of Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster prior to 01.06.1988 and to award Selection Grade and Special Grade to them. However, the persons who assumed posts as Primary School Headmasters after 01.06.1988 was not granted the said benefit, hence the said teachers who were not granted the said benefit filed petition before Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has held that the benefit granted to persons prior to 01.06.1988 and declining to persons after 01.06.1988 would amount to discriminatory and quashed the said G.O. which granted the said benefit. Also, the Tribunal directed the government to reconsider, based on which the government declined benefits for both persons prior to 01.06.1988 and for persons after 01.06.1988. Also directed to recovery the amount to persons who were granted prior to 01.06.1988. However, the persons who were facing recovery had filed petitions before Tribunal and the same was allowed. Then started the spate of litigations and various orders were passed by the Hon’ble High Court directing the Government to grant the benefits. As usual the government woke up belatedly and filed writ appeal with huge delay and the same was dismissed with cost. By the time the government was under the grip of contempt petition. Left with no option the State Government issued revised scale of pay to the Secondary Grade Teachers vide G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993. 8. As usual the government woke up belatedly and filed writ appeal with huge delay and the same was dismissed with cost. By the time the government was under the grip of contempt petition. Left with no option the State Government issued revised scale of pay to the Secondary Grade Teachers vide G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993. 8. The issue of selection grade and special grade under G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993, G.O.Ms.No.234 School Education (G) Department dated 10.09.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.210 School Education (G.1) Department, dated 14.08.2009 and other G.O’s, was elaborately considered by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 3186 of 2016 in the case of Jothi Chandra and W.P.(MD) No.3187 of 2016 in the case of T. Vallimmai vide order dated 25.01.2022. This Court has also considered in W.P.(MD)No.4029 of 2016 is the case of V.Robert, then in W.P.(MD)No.4929 of 2016 in the case of S.Kirubai and then in W.P.(MD)No.4928 of 2016 in the case of V.Ponnuthai and then in W.P.(MD)No.4927 of 2016 in the case of B.Kanagamani and declined the prayer of the petitioners’ therein. 9. The concept of selection grade and special grade is to grant hike in the salary if the person is not getting any promotional opportunity. Any person stagnating in any post could be entitled to selection grade and special grade. If the person is not serving in the promotional post, the person cannot claim any benefit attached to the promotional post. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in W.P.(MD) No. 3186 of 2016 is extracted hereunder: “7. The concept of selection / special grade is that the government employees are entitled to “selection grade” if the person is stagnating is the same post without promotion for 10 years and entitled to “special grade” if the person is stagnating is the same post without promotion for 20 years. The G.O. Ms. No. 666 Finance (Pay Commission) dated 27.06.1089 was issued cancelling the selection / special grade. Thereafter the scheme of granting selection / special grade was reintroduced vide G.O. Ms. No. 304 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 28.03.1990. In partial modification in paragraph 9 of the G.O. 666, the G.O. 304 was issued granting the selection / special grade. 8. In Education Department prior to 01.06.1988 the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster in Government Schools and Panchayat Union Schools are interchangeable and considered as same post. No. 304 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 28.03.1990. In partial modification in paragraph 9 of the G.O. 666, the G.O. 304 was issued granting the selection / special grade. 8. In Education Department prior to 01.06.1988 the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster in Government Schools and Panchayat Union Schools are interchangeable and considered as same post. The grade pay of the Secondary Grade Teacher and the grade pay of the Primary School Headmaster are same, with an additional special pay to the Headmaster. After 01.06.1988 the post of Headmaster is a promotion post and in V pay Commission the Headmaster were paid Rs. 1400-2600 without special pay and the Secondary Grade Teacher were paid 1200-2040. The teachers who had worked in the Panchayat Schools / Government Schools in Secondary Grade Post were allowed to serve as Headmaster of Primary School with extra allowance to the post of Headmaster post. After 01.06.1988 the post of Headmaster is made as promotion post. Therefore a claim was submitted to add the service of Secondary Grade Post and Headmaster of Primary School for calculating the selection grade and special grade. The government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1381 Education Department dated 05.10.1990 wherein selection / special grade was granted to teachers who were holding the HM post on 01.06.1988 be awarded selection / special grade in the revised scales on or after 01.06.1988 by computing the “Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School HM prior to 01.06.1988”. The G.O. also states that “at the post of HM carries higher scale of pay above that of the Secondary Grade Teachers, those promoted as HM after 01.06.1988 shall be allowed fixation of pay in the post of HM as provided under Fundamental Rules 22B. The persons promoted after 01.06.1988 opposed to fix under Fundamental Rules 22B and they prayed to grant selection / special grade as granted to HM by taking both secondary grade service and HM post. Since the same was declined, those persons filed petition before Tribunal in O.A. No. 2899, 3009 and 3010 of 1989 and the Tribunal has held that the classification is wrong and set aside the paragraph 3 and 4 of the G.O. Ms. No. 1381. 9. Hence the Government issued a G.O. Ms. Since the same was declined, those persons filed petition before Tribunal in O.A. No. 2899, 3009 and 3010 of 1989 and the Tribunal has held that the classification is wrong and set aside the paragraph 3 and 4 of the G.O. Ms. No. 1381. 9. Hence the Government issued a G.O. Ms. No. 300 Education, Science and Technology Department dated 07.04.1994 wherein the grant of selection / special grade in G.O. 1381 was quashed and the benefit already disbursed were ordered for recovery. In the G.O. it has been categorically stated that the service of HM post alone will be taken for granting selection / special grade. In other words, the Secondary Grade post will not be taken into account while counting the service for Primary School HM. Unfortunately, the G.O. Ms. No.300 dated 07.04.1994 was not brought to the knowledge of this Court at the earliest point of time and there was total mess in this issue. 10. In the meanwhile, the government issued G.O. Ms. No. 216 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 22.03.1993, extending the selection / special grade to the “Secondary Grade Teachers in Middle School”, since they will not be having any promotional opportunities. It is pertinent to note that the G.O. is not stating to calculate both the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM post to grant selection / special grade. It simply states to grant selection / special grade to Secondary Grade Teachers working in Middle School, since they are not having promotional opportunities. Until this period the issue was settled, however later point of time this G.O. 216 dated 22.03.1993 was misinterpreted. 11. Thereafter, the issue started exploding when the teachers in order to retain the wrong benefits granted under G.O. 1381 (which G.O. was quashed by Tribunal) started filing writ petitions and the wrong started perpetuating. Writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 8079 / 2005 and vide order dated 28.04.2008 the writ petitions were allowed. In another writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2001 the government was directed to consider the claim. Since several writ petitions were filed and allowed, helplessness griped the government. Hence pending writ petitions the government issued G.O. Ms. Writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 8079 / 2005 and vide order dated 28.04.2008 the writ petitions were allowed. In another writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2001 the government was directed to consider the claim. Since several writ petitions were filed and allowed, helplessness griped the government. Hence pending writ petitions the government issued G.O. Ms. No. 207 School Education (G2) Department dated 30.09.2008 and G.O. states that pension benefits shall be granted and the government would incur an additional expenditure of Rs.1,87,93,225/- and this is subject to the out come of the pending writ petitions. 12. Then the issue turned to an extreme level wherein the G.O. Ms. No. 210 School Education (G2) Department dated 14.08.2009 was issued. In this the teachers prayed to calculate the Secondary Grade W.P(MD) Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2016 Post service + Primary School HM service and thereafter fix the service in Middle School HM post and grant Selection / Special Grade. The said G.O. granted the benefits to the persons mentioned in the G.O. Then in G.O. Ms. No. 190 School Education (G1) Department dated 12.07.2010 was issued extending to some more persons by taking the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM and grant selection / special grade in Middle School HM post. A correction G.O. was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 230 School Education (G1) Department dated 10.08.2010. Then G.O. Ms. No. 146 School Education (G1) Department dated 19.06.2012 was issued to some more persons to calculate Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM was taken to grant Middle School HM selection / special grade. In this G.O. it has been stated that more than six crores would be the financial implications for the 260 teachers. As pointed out supra the employee is entitled to selection / special grade if a person is “stagnating” in the same post. But now the teachers would be promoted as Primary School HM, then also they will demand to calculate the period of service in Primary School HM post. Then again the person would be promoted to Middle School HM, then also the person will demand to calculate both the secondary grade service + primary school HM and fix the same in Middle School HM post and grant selection / special grade. In short the entire service should be taken into account to grant selection / special grade. Then again the person would be promoted to Middle School HM, then also the person will demand to calculate both the secondary grade service + primary school HM and fix the same in Middle School HM post and grant selection / special grade. In short the entire service should be taken into account to grant selection / special grade. That too “along with promotion”, that is the high light of the issue. 13. Thereafter numerous government orders were passed. This Court has passed an order in W.P. No. 29644 / 2003 and 29645 / 2003 dated 21.03.2008 covering 61 persons and to implement the order the G.O. Ms. No. 234 School Education (G2) Department dated 10.09.2009 was issued wherein, the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM was calculated. Again based on court’s order G.O. Ms. No. 270 School Education (G2) Department dated 20.09.2010 was issued. Likewise based on court’s order, G.O. Ms. No. 216 School Education (G2) Department dated 30.12.2011, G.O. Ms. No. 179 School Education (Elementary2) Department dated 06.09.2013, G.O. Ms. No. 180 School Education (S.E. 3(1)) Department dated 06.09.2013, G.O. Ms. No. 181 School Education (S.E.3(1)) Department, dated 06.09.2013 were issued, wherein the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM was calculated. 14. These G.O. were passed in a fond hope that this issue will come to an end, but the issue could not see the end at all, inspite of so many G.O.s 15. This Court has allowed several petitions and the government finally filed review application in Rev. Appl. No. 227 / 2015 and the same was referred to Full Bench. The review application was taken up along with several writ appeals and writ petitions, wherein it was held the issue cannot be reagitated again and has held that the benefits shall be notionally calculated and the monetary benefits shall be payable on and from 01.03.2017. 16. Appl. No. 227 / 2015 and the same was referred to Full Bench. The review application was taken up along with several writ appeals and writ petitions, wherein it was held the issue cannot be reagitated again and has held that the benefits shall be notionally calculated and the monetary benefits shall be payable on and from 01.03.2017. 16. This Court rejected the claims in several petitions and one such case is the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011 in Division Bench headed by Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice N. Kirubakaran has held in paragraph 5, “that the employees who were in service in 1997-1998 as well as in the year 2002 did not rise a little finger either at the time of when the original applications were filed in the year 1997-1998 or at the time when the original application were allowed by the Tribunal in the year 2002”. And rejected the dead and stale claims. 17. Thereafter the Rev. Appl. (MD) No. 35 / 2018 dated 19.03.2018, W.A. 34 / 2017 dated 03.01.2019 and W.A. 73 / 2016 dated 03.01.2019 was passed dismissing the review applications / writ appeals filed by the government. 18. Under this background the present two writ petitions are considered. In W.P.(MD)No.3186/2016 the petitioner has attained superannuation and retired in the year 2006 and has filed the present writ petition in the year 2016, after a lapse of 10 years from the date of retirement. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3187/2016 attained superannuation and retired in the year 2006 and has filed the present writ petition in the year 2016, after a lapse of 10 years from the date of retirement. Hence this Court following the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011, rejects the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and latches, since the dead and stale claims cannot be entertained. 19. The petitioners relied on G.O. Ms. No. 210, 190 and 146 and these G.O.s are passed in order to implement the orders of this Court. The petitioners ought to establish their right based on any provisions of law, rules, regulations and any government order passed based on the any policy decision of the government. 19. The petitioners relied on G.O. Ms. No. 210, 190 and 146 and these G.O.s are passed in order to implement the orders of this Court. The petitioners ought to establish their right based on any provisions of law, rules, regulations and any government order passed based on the any policy decision of the government. In other words, if the government order is passed on the basis of the policy decision of the government i.e. G.O. passed in rem is applicable to all. The petitioners cannot claim any right to any government order which were passed in order to obey the orders of the Court i.e. government order passed to person specific / “in persona” cannot be cited to claim any right. In fact several writ petitions are filed citing the G.O.s which were passed to obey the orders of this Court, if that is discouraged then pendency of the writ petitions would be considerably reduced. 20. This Court is of the considered opinion each case ought to be dealt with on its own merits. In the present case, the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 3186/2016 was regularized on 08.07.1977 in School Assistant Teacher post, had received Selection Grade on 08.07.1987 in the School Assistant Teacher post. Then promoted as Middle School HM on W.P(MD) Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2016 12.10.1988. Then the petitioner received Selection Grade on 12.10.1998 in the post of Middle School HM. Then the petitioner is eligible for Special Grade on 12.10.2008, but since the petitioner retired on 30.04.2006, two years before the eligibility for Special Grade. Now the petitioner is seeking to take the two years from School Assistant Teacher post and grant Special Grade in the post of Middle School HM. Incidentally the petitioner has already received Selection Grade in the post of School Assistant Post. If the claim of the petitioner is accepted then the claim would be two selection grade for the same period which is absolutely illegal claim. Moreover as stated supra the selection / special grade cannot be granted once the promotion is granted to the petitioner. 21. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 3187 / 2016 was appointed as B.T. Assistant on 11.01.1982, received Selection Grade in the B.T. Assistant post on 10.01.1992 and the said disbursement of selection grade itself is wrong, since the petitioner was already promoted as Middle School HM on 21.12.1988. 21. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 3187 / 2016 was appointed as B.T. Assistant on 11.01.1982, received Selection Grade in the B.T. Assistant post on 10.01.1992 and the said disbursement of selection grade itself is wrong, since the petitioner was already promoted as Middle School HM on 21.12.1988. If the 1988 is taken as promotion date, then the petitioner is eligible for selection grade in the Middle School HM post on 21.12.1998, since the earlier selection grade fixation is wrong, this selection grade was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner would be eligible for special grade on 21.12.2008, but the same was not granted, since two years prior to eligibility for special grade the petitioner retired from service on 20.12.2006. Moreover, as stated supra the selection / special grade cannot be granted once the promotion is granted to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the definite opinion that the petitioners are not eligible to get selection grade / special grade after promotion by taking both “pre promotion” post and “post promotion” post and the claim is illegal and unjust enrichment. 22. In fact the Tribunal has rightly held at the earliest point of time while considering G.O.1381 that when the scale of pay is different for two services, then both services cannot be taken for calculating 10 years / 20 years, more so when one service has less pay and the other service has more pay. The Secondary Grade Teacher has less pay and the primary school Headmaster has higher pay and Middle school Headmaster has still more higher pay. Then, any two services or any three services cannot be taken to calculate 10 years or 20 years to grant selection grade or special grade respectively. 23. The teachers are seeking to grant selection grade and special grade by calculating the service in Secondary Grade Teacher post and the promoted post of Primary School Headmaster. Also claiming to calculate the Secondary Grade post and Primary School Headmaster post along with the Middle School Headmaster post and grant special grade. In short the teachers are claiming both the promotion and as well as selection grade and special grade for their entire service. The concept has entirely changed by this plea to calculate the entire service including the promotion post. The claim to grant Selection Grade / Special Grade after availing promotion is illegal and unjust enrichment. In short the teachers are claiming both the promotion and as well as selection grade and special grade for their entire service. The concept has entirely changed by this plea to calculate the entire service including the promotion post. The claim to grant Selection Grade / Special Grade after availing promotion is illegal and unjust enrichment. The basic concept of Selection Grade / Special Grade is tampered with to obtain illegal claim. The very concept of granting selection grade and special grade is buried by these kind of writ petitions. This Court is of the considered opinion that the teachers are either eligible for promotion or for Selection / Special Grade and the teachers are not eligible for both. 24. The wrong claim of selection grade / special grade by calculating two or three different services were the subject matter from 1991 onwards, the Government passed several orders to put an end to the claim, this Court passed orders to put an end to the claim, but still several claims are arising until 2022. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that illegal claim should end and this Court is putting a big full stop to the illegal claims by this order. 25. For the reasons stated above the writ petitioners are not entitled to the benefits and the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 10. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits as per the order of the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Government of Tamilnadu rep. by the Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-09 and Others Vs. G. Eswaran and Others filed in Rev.Appl.No. 227 of 2015 etc., dated 09.12.2016 reported in 2017(1) CWC 561 because the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2019 and the petitioner has not filed any writ petition prior to 2016 and the cutoff date prescribed in the order of the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court is until 09.12.2016. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “38. i…. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “38. i…. iv) It is further made clear that the benefits as directed above, shall be extended to the parties who are before this Court alone and no fresh Writ Petitions would be entertained on and from 09.12.2016;” Therefore, based on the order of Honourable Full Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to. 11. Moreover, the petitioner has filed this writ petition belatedly. Any stale and belated claim cannot be entertained as per the judgment order dated 09.12.2015 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011 in Division Bench. Therefore, for all these reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the claim of selection grade and special grade as per G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993 and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to G.O.Ms.No.62, (Finance (CMPC) Department), dated 09.03.2015. 12. For the reasons stated supra the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.