Radhakrishnan, J.

Claims of over 30,000 police personnel, more than 300 writ appeals (equal number of writ petitions) nearly 500 crores of rupees and a mammoth re-doing exercise are the stakes involved in these and other related cases. Few appeals were filed with delay petitions and considering the larger public interest involved we have condoned the delay in all those cases, after directing the State to take out notice to respondents through paper publication.

2. Petitioners, many of them had retired long back, woke up from their slumber and have approached this court for treating the period of training under gone by them when they had entered service as duty for the purpose of salary, increments, pension etc. on the strength of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Lekshmanan v. State of Kerala, (1995 (1) KLT 115) and also the Government Order G.O. (Rt.) No.2081/04/Home dt. 20-9-2004. Writ petitions preferred by the petitioners were disposed of granting the relief’s as prayed for relying on Lekshmanan’s case. Aggrieved by the same the State Government have come up with these appeals.

3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that Lekshmanan’s case was wrongly decided since the court had omitted to take note of the effect of the Government Orders G.O. (Rt.) 2047/Public (Services) dated 29-11-1961, G.O. (MS) No.394/64/Home dt. 4-9-1964 as well as rule 10 of the Kerala Police Subordinate Services (Armed Police Battalions) Special Rules, 1984 therefore has to be considered per incuriam. In support of his contention learned Advocate General placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Nirmal Jeel Kaur v. State of M.P. and another, (2004 (7) SCC 558), Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and another, (2005 (1) SCC 608) and several other decisions. Learned Advocate General further submitted that in any view of the matter the ratio of that decision cannot be of general application and every case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. Learned Advocate general further submitted that the Government Order dated 20-9-2004 was issued to give effect to certain judgments of this Court rendered following Lekshmanan’s case. Learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioners have to establish their claim independently furnishing relevant service details like the date of their entry in service, the period of training undergone, details of the stipend received, etc. Further no explanation was offered for the inordinate delay and latches in approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Sri. Subhash Chandrabose, Sri Anil Babu and other Advocates who appeared for some of the respondents submitted that the learned single Judge was justified in extending the benefit of Lekshmanan’s case to the petitioners also and that they are also entitled to similar benefits which were extended to few others on the basis of the Govt. Order dated 20-9-04. Denial of such benefit according to the petitioners is discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submitted, the special rules as such would not apply to some of the police constables who are governed by Annexures-A1 and A2. Few of them were appointed as Sub Inspectors in the Executive Branch and are not governed by the Special Rules. Counsel submitted that the Special Rules, 1984 referred to herein before relates to Armed Police Battalion and not the Police Constables or the Sub Inspectors in the General Executive Branch. Learned counsel therefore submitted, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge in extending similar benefits to the petitioners also.

5. Division Bench of this Court in Lekshmanan’s case was dealing with the claim of a Sub Inspector of Police who was advised for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police by the Public Service Commission vide its memo dated 11-12-1975. Bench notice that the appointment memo would shown that petitioner was selected