Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in this case is whether a Specialist Teacher (Drawing) can claim stepping up of his salary as equal to that of a P.D.Teacher, who, admittedly entered service after the entry of the Specialist Teacher. Incidentally, the point whether an executive order issued by the Government could be modified by a Government letter or circular, also arises for consideration in this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The appellant/writ petitioner joined the Department of General Education, as Drawing Teacher, on 10.01.1984. He was given the first higher grade promotion on 10.01.1994. While he was working in that grade, pay revision was introduced with effect from 01.01.1998 as per G.O.(P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. When the pay revision was implemented, the appellant found that a P.D. Teacher, who entered service on 04.12.1985, was drawing higher pay than him. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P1 claim in the prescribed format, for senior-junior fixation, provided in paragraph 6 of Annexure-III of GO(P)No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. The Principal of the School allowed his claim and he drew the revised salary for a period of ten months. While so, audit objection was raised and the Deputy Director, by Ext.P2 proceedings, set aside the decision of the Principal in his favour and ordered to refund the excess salary received by him. The reasons stated in Ext.P2 for cancelling the fixation granted to the appellant were that as per paragraph 6(1) of the aforementioned G.O., the senior-junior fixation can be allowed only to those Officers, belonging to the same category and they should be promotes to that category also. Challenging Ext.P2, the appellant filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Government. But, the said appeal was rejected by the Government by Ext.P7 communication dated 21.07.2006. It was stated in the said communication that as per GO(P)No.3000/98/Fin. Dated 25.11.1998 and Circular No.59151/J2/ 2000/G.Edn. Dated 17.05.2002, the claim of the appellant cannot be allowed. The circular dated 17.05.2002, mentioned in Ext.P7 is Ext.P3. The appellant would point out that as per Ext.P4 Judgment, this Court has held that Ext.P3 circular does not have any efficacy to take away the rights of the incumbent, who is otherwise eligible for senior-junior fixation. Ext.P5 is another Judgment of this Court, which was rendered, following Ext.P4 Judgment. The appellant's representation, praying, at least not to recover the excess salary paid, was also rejected by the Government by Ext.P8 order dated 18.10.2006. So, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking a declaration that the pay of the appellant, fixed as per Ext.P1, cannot be revised by Ext.P2. Other incidental reliefs were also sought. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. It was stated in the said counter affidavit that paragraph 6 of the pay revision order does not cover the case of the appellant. The 2nd respondent also relied on Ext.P3 circular. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that the benefit flowing from a Government Order, cannot be modified or withdrawn by a circular, in the nature of Ext.P3. The said submission is supported by Exts.P4 and P5 Judgments. In any view of the matter, the payment already made, may not be recovered, it was submitted. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the decision of the learned Single Judge, relying on the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit.

4. Whether a Government Order, issued in the name of the Governor could be modified by a letter, issued by a Secretary to Government, is a frequently mooted point before this Court. The point that a Government order can be clarified by a Government letter, is covered by the decision of this Court i