JUDGMENT : S.Manu, J. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6 communications issued by the Deputy Director of Education and the District Educational Officer respectively. The petitioner entered service as Full Time Menial in Holy Cross High School, Monippally on 15.09.1981, a school under the 6 th respondent – Corporate Manager. He was promoted as Peon on 12.01.1987 and posted at Holy Family High School, Rajapuram under the same management. Later, on 1.10.1988, he was posted on by transfer appointment on promotion as clerk in St.Thomas Higher Secondary School, Chingavanam. He retired on 31.01.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. He completed 10 years of service in the post of Clerk on 01.10.1998 and was granted the benefit of Ext.P7 order upon completion of 10 years of service. 2. Ext.P5 was issued by the 3 rd respondent - Deputy Director of Education on 09.12.2015 stating that the fixation of pay of the petitioner was found to be erroneous. According to the Deputy Director of Education, the pay of the petitioner was fixed with effect from 01.07.2004 in the scale of pay of Rs.6680 - Rs.10790 at Rs.8390. By letter dated 06.02.2013, Government clarified that the Clerks in aided schools were entitled only to the table scale with effect from the 2004 pay revision. The Deputy Director of Education, therefore, opined that the petitioner was entitled only for pay scale of Rs.6080 - Rs.9830. Further, it was stated in Ext.P5 that the petitioner was granted Senior Grade (16 years) on 01.07.2006. In the pay scale of Rs.7990 - Rs.12930 at Rs.9190. The Deputy Director of Education stated that the said fixation cannot be approved. It was also stated that the petitioner was entitled only for the Third Time Bound Higher Grade of 23 years service, taking into account the service as Last Grade servant also. Hence, the pay of the petitioner was directed to be revised with effect from 01.07.2004. 3. Ext.P6 was issued by the 4 th respondent - District Educational Officer directing the Headmaster to remit Rs.1,01,678 or to recover the said amount from the DCRG of the petitioner. By that time, the petitioner had retired from service. 4. Petitioner has raised challenge against Exts.P5 and P6 mainly relying on Ext.P7 Government Order dated 03.09.1983. 3. Ext.P6 was issued by the 4 th respondent - District Educational Officer directing the Headmaster to remit Rs.1,01,678 or to recover the said amount from the DCRG of the petitioner. By that time, the petitioner had retired from service. 4. Petitioner has raised challenge against Exts.P5 and P6 mainly relying on Ext.P7 Government Order dated 03.09.1983. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of Ext.P7, the petitioner was entitled for Senior Grade on completion of 10 years of service as clerk and Ext.P5 was issued without taking note of Ext.P7 as well as Ext.P8. 5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, referred to the averments in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the Government later clarified that, in the case of Aided School Clerks, the entry grade for clerks promoted from Last Grade Servants is that of Last Grade Servant, and not Clerk. It is also contended that the granting of a Higher Grade on completion of ten years of service as Clerk was applicable only to those whose initial appointment was as a Clerk. The learned Government Pleader referred to Ext.R3(c) Government Order dated 02.04.2012 and also Ext.R3(e) communication issued by the Government on 01.08.2015 to the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki. 6. The petitioner completed 10 years of service as clerk on 01.10.1998 and the pay fixation which is now sought to be revised was with effect from the year 2004. Clarifications issued by the Government, to the effect that the benefit of Ext.P7 was restricted to those who entered service or were initially appointed as Clerks, were not available when the petitioner’s pay was fixed. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2016 and the direction to revise his pay was issued only when he was about to retire on 09.12.2015. Before any action was taken on the basis of Ext.P5 for recovery, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired. 7. In this peculiar circumstances, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner requires to be considered by the Government. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) The petitioner shall submit a comprehensive representation raising all contentions and pointing out the grievances to the Secretary, General Education Department within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) The petitioner shall submit a comprehensive representation raising all contentions and pointing out the grievances to the Secretary, General Education Department within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. b) The Secretary, General Educational Department shall consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. c) The Secretary, General Educational Department shall take a final decision within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Further actions on the basis of Ext.P6 shall be kept on hold till a final decision is taken by the Secretary as directed above. This writ petition is disposed of as above.