ORDER : C.Saravanan, J. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order/ Communication dated 21.01.2014 of the 1 st respondent Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation represented by its Managing Director dated 21.01.2014 whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled to personal pay for the period between 08.04.2001 and 31.03.2012, latter date being the date of superannuation of the petitioner. 2. The Impugned Order / Communication dated 21.01.2014 has been passed in response to a representation dated 25.10.2013 of the petitioner. Operative portion of the Impugned Communication dated 21.01.2014 reads as under:- 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents Corporation as a Bill Clerk in the year 1976. The petitioner was later promoted as a Junior Assistant in the year 2007. The petitioner retired from the service as a Junior Assistant on 31.03.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The petitioner was given personal pay of 5% pursuant to G.O. (Ms) No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992 for a sum of Rs.25,028/-. 5. There was an Audit Objection pursuant to which recovery was made by the 1 st respondent on 08.04.2001 for a sum of Rs.25,028/- while in service. Similar recoveries were made in respect of other employees as well across the State. 6. It appears that this Court had interfered and therefore a decision was taken by the 1 st respondent in Circular.Sl.No.61 of 2009 (Rc.AE11/25629/06) dated 25.08.2009 to refund the amount that was recovered from the employees concerned (including the petitioner). 7. Thus, the amount that was recovered to the petitioner earlier till 07.04.2001 was refunded back pursuant to the aforesaid Circular.Sl.No.61 of 2009 (Rc.AE11/25629/06) dated 25.08.2009. However, the respondents have declined to give personal pay to the petitioner for the period thereafter between 08.04.2001 to 31.03.2012 citing the Audit Objection in the Impugned Order / Communication. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this Court rendered on 09.10.2009 in W.P.No.6510 of 2005 in the case of M.Ramakrishnan Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited , Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and another wherein, the above Circular had held that the respondents cannot deny the personal pay that was sanctioned in terms of G.O. (Ms) No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992. 9. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited , Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and another wherein, the above Circular had held that the respondents cannot deny the personal pay that was sanctioned in terms of G.O. (Ms) No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner in any event had satisfied the relevant criteria for grant of personal pay at 5% of the basic pay commuted as on 01.08.1992 as per the above Government Order. 10. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Assistant in the year 2007, the benefit of personal pay in terms of the aforesaid Government Order cannot be denied till the date of retirement of the petitioner. 11. Defending the stand of the respondents, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner was only a Bill Clerk appointed in the Civil Supplies Department on 10.11.1976 and that the work of a Bill Clerk was seasonal in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner was permanently appointed as a Junior Assistant only on 25.01.2007. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to personal pay for the period till the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992. 12. The learned counsel for the first respondent would specifically draw attention to Paragraph No.2 of the aforesaid Government Order, wherein, reference has been made to the grievance of the Record Clerks, Junior Assistants, Assistants and Superintendents. It is submitted that during the period in dispute, the petitioner was neither a Record Clerk nor a Junior Assistant or an Assistant or a Superintendent and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of personal pay in lieu of the revision of pay scale in the fifth pay commission's recommendation. It is therefore submitted that a Circular was issued on 08.04.2001 by the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent/Civil Supplies Department bearing Reference RC.No.F2/25677/2001, wherein, it was clarified that persons like petitioners who were working as Bill Clerks was not entitled to personal pay in terms of the aforesaid Government Order. 13. It is therefore submitted that a Circular was issued on 08.04.2001 by the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent/Civil Supplies Department bearing Reference RC.No.F2/25677/2001, wherein, it was clarified that persons like petitioners who were working as Bill Clerks was not entitled to personal pay in terms of the aforesaid Government Order. 13. The learned counsel for the first respondent therefore submits that a sum of Rs.25,028/- was recovered initially paid for the period between 01.08.1982 and 08.04.2001 and was later refunded back in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26585 of 2013 filed by the petitioner which was ordered on 25.09.2013. However, merely because, the mistake that was committed in the past would not mean that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid personal pay for the period thereafter i.e., between 08.04.2001 and 31.03.2012 being the date on which, the petitioner attained the age of Superannuation, after he was promoted as a Junior Assistant on 25.01.2007. 14. That apart, the learned counsel for the first respondent would also submit that if an order was passed in favour of the petitioner, it would result in payment to several other employees of the respondent Civil Service Department. It is submitted that Civil Service Department is a non-profit department of the Government and will be forced to pay the amount to several other employees like the petitioner which will not support the budget. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 15. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992 in Paragraph No.4 has made clear that persons like petitioner are entitled to personal pay. It is submitted that all categories of staff would include persons like petitioner also who was working as a Bill Clerk from 1976 who was later promoted as a Junior Assistant with effect from 25.01.2007 and worked till 31.03.2012, being the date on which the petitioner attained the age of Superannuation. It is further submitted that the petitioner was entitled only a sum of Rs.58/- p.m and the respondents have taken a different stand in different region. That apart, it is submitted that the respondent have discriminated only to Bill Clerk. It is further submitted that the petitioner was entitled only a sum of Rs.58/- p.m and the respondents have taken a different stand in different region. That apart, it is submitted that the respondent have discriminated only to Bill Clerk. It is submitted that in all other regions of the respondent corporation, Bills Clerks have been continuing to draw 5% personal pay even after the issue of the said circular dated 08.04.2001. A reference was made to the case of one Paulchamy, who Retired Superintendent from the Chennai region who had earlier worked in the Kancheepuram region is one such employee who was getting 5% personal pay both prior to and after the issue of the said circular dated 08/04/2001 upto the date of his retirement. It is submitted that the said Paulchamy had worked as a Bill Clerk whose pay was in the scale of Rs.610-1075/- and was a Bill Clerk when he was initially given the benefit of 5% personal pay. Particularly, a reference was made to Paragraph No.5 of the Additional Affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition which reads as under:- “5. I submit that I am deposing to this affidavit to place on record certain additional facts of the case on record before this Court. I submit that the aforementioned circular of 08/04/2001 cancelling the 5% personal pay granted to the Bill Clerk cadre has been selectively implemented only in the southern regions of the respondent corporation, that is, in Tirunelveli, Tuticorin, Kanyakumari, Virudhunagar and Ramnad. I submit that in all the other regions of the respondent corporation, Bills Clerks have been continuing to draw 5% personal pay even after the issue of the said circular dated 08/04/2001. I submit that Paulchamy, Retired Superintendent from the Chennai region who had earlier worked in the Kancheepuram region is one such employee who been getting 5% personal pay both prior to and after the issue of the said circular dated 08/04/2001 upto the date of his retirement. I submit that the said Paulchamy had worked as a Bill Clerk whose pay was in the scale of Rs.610-1075/- and was a Bill Clerk when he was initially given the benefit of 5% personal pay.” 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 17. I submit that the said Paulchamy had worked as a Bill Clerk whose pay was in the scale of Rs.610-1075/- and was a Bill Clerk when he was initially given the benefit of 5% personal pay.” 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 17. The argument of the first respondent is that the petitioner as a Bill Clerk was not entitled to the benefit of personal pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992 for the period between 08.04.2001 and 31.03.2012 cannot countenanced in view of Paragraph No.4 of the above Government Order. The said Government Order applies to all categories of staff. It would include Bill Clerks. Para 4 of the G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992 reads as under:- “4.At the same time the plea of these employees for Government to extend some sympathetic consideration has been taken note of Government consider that these categories should be positively notivated in undertaking important items of work entrusted to them. Further job responsibilities of these categories require due recognition. Keeping in mind the importance of the job responsibilities attached to the categories in these scales of pay and the need to positively motivate these categories to undertake their responsibilities, Government have decided to grant a personal pay at five percent of the basic pay to all categories of staff in the following scales of pay. Government accordingly direct that five percent of the basic pay computed as on 01.08.1992 be granted as personal pay to the following:- (i) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scales of pay at Rs.475-775 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.775- 1030. (ii) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.610-1075 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.950- 1500 or Rs.975-1660. (iii) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.705-1230 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040, and (iv) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.905-1545 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600- 2660.” 18. The recovery that was earlier pursuant to Circular No.RC.No.F2/25677/2001 dated 08.04.2001 was justly interfered by this Court by its order dated 25.09.2013 in the case of the petitioner himself in W.P.No.26585 of 2013. The recovery that was earlier pursuant to Circular No.RC.No.F2/25677/2001 dated 08.04.2001 was justly interfered by this Court by its order dated 25.09.2013 in the case of the petitioner himself in W.P.No.26585 of 2013. Consequently, the recovery that was made earlier has been paid back. In fact it would be also in line with the later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs Rafiq masih (White Washer) and others , 2015 (4) SCC 334 . 19. The conclusion arrived in the intimation dated 21.01.2014 bearing Reference No.Na.Ka.No.AE11/74504/2013 that the petitioner was not entitled to personal pay for the period after 01.08.1992 (actually 08.04.2001) to 31.03.2012 also cannot be countenanced, in view of discriminative practice also followed by the respondents. The benefits of G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992 which was earlier given to the petitioner cannot be denied. The amount which has remained unpaid has to be paid. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the same. 20. Since the Writ Petition is of the year 2014 and almost 11 years have lapsed and since the petitioner had retired on 31.03.2012, I am of the view the respondents should expedite to release the balance amount which remains unpaid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is to be allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.