HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.

This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Judge in a writ petition filed by the first respondent.

2. Heard Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, Mr.N.Subramanian, Party-in-Person and Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. The first respondent joined the service as B.T. Assistant in the year 1953 and was later promoted as Head Master in the year 1966. On 10.7.1983, he retired from service voluntarily. His qualifying service was 30 years and 14 days for the purpose of pension. His pension was revised under G.O.Ms.No.449, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.10.1999 and payment of arrears thereof was made in October/November 2002. After coming to know about G.O.Ms.No.1108, P&AR Department, dated 18.12.1997, wherein it is stated that the Government servants shall be given weightage not exceeding five years, if the total qualifying service does not exceed 33 years, he made a representation to the third appellant on 29.11.2002 seeking to refix his pension. The third appellant, by proceedings dated 14.01.2003, stating that there is no provision in rules to refix pension by giving weightage to the persons retired voluntarily, directed the first respondent to approach the Head of the Department. Accordingly, the first respondent made a representation to the second appellant on 13.02.2003 and the same was rejected by the proceedings of the second appellant dated 23.4.2003 on the ground that there is no provision to revise the pension by giving weightage to the persons who retired voluntarily prior to 1987. Hence, the first respondent filed an application before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2767 of 2003, challenging the orders of the second and third appellants and the same was transferred to this Court, on abolition of the Tribunal, and renumbered as W.P.No.11739 of 2007.

4. The learned single Judge, by order dated 22.12.2014, holding that the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.1108 dated 18.12.1997 can be extended to the persons who retired prior to the date of the issue of the said G.O., of course, with effect from the date of the said G.O., directed the appellants to send appropriate proposal for revising pension and other terminal benefits of the first respondent, to the second respondent herein within a period of eight weeks. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Court.

5. Mr. T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that G.O.Ms.No.1108 dated 18.12.1997 is issued only with respect to the employees who were in service on the date of issue of the said G.O. and therefore, the same cannot be applied to the persons who retired earlier to the issuance of G.O. In other words, the G.O. issued was to take effect only from the date of issuance, namely 18.12.1997, and cannot be given retrospective effect.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the first respondent having opted for voluntary retirement under a similar scheme announced through G.O.Ms.No.1327, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.I) Department, dated 27.11.1978, which stipulates that person who seeks voluntary retirement under the said scheme, on attaining the age of 50 years and completing 20 years of qualifying service, will not be given weightage, cannot now contend that he should be given the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1108 dated 18.12.1987 by giving him weightage of 3 years. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Col.B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India [(2006) 11 SCC 709] and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Subbarayudu [(2008) 14 SCC 702].

7. The first respondent, who appeared as party-in-person, contended that since he retired voluntarily under the scheme in G.O.Ms.No.1327, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR I) Department, dated 27.11.1978, he cannot be deprived of the benefits granted under G.O.Ms.No.1108, P&AR