The court affirmed that benefits under government orders must be uniformly extended to all similarly situated individuals, regardless of their litigation status.

ORDER :

(R. POORNIMA, J.)

The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.20763 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records in G.O(Ms) No.62 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 09.03.2015 as arbitrary and illegal direct the respondent to extend the benefits of G.O(Ms) No.216, Finance (PC) Department dated 22.03.1993 and to award selection grade of pay with effect from 01.06.1988 and special grade with effect from 12.08.1990 and to revisionary benefits and arrears to the petitioner.

2. The brief case of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 20763 of 2016 are as follows :

2.1) The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the cadre of Secondary grade teacher on 12.08.1970 in Z.K.M, Higher Secondary School, Bodinayakkanur, Theni district. He was transferred to the 6^th respondent School on 15.02.1977 and he retired from service on 30.06.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. During his service he got Selection Grade on 23.01.1980 and special grade on 12.08.1990 without any promotion.

2.2) He had completed 20 years service as Special Teacher in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher without any promotion opportunity and got Selection Grade and Special Grade after the completion of 10 and 20 years service respectively.

2.3) The benefit of Selection Grade scale of pay equal to the ordinary scale of pay of the promotion post and special grade scale of pay equal to the selection grade scale of pay of the promotion post were not given as per the direction in G.O (Ms) No.216, Finance (PC) Department dated 22.03.1993.

2.4) Some other writ petitions were filed by group of teachers before this Court and the Court directed the respondents to extend the benefit to the said petitioner within a period of four months from the date of copy of the order. Following the common order, several similar orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in thousands of petitions. The Special Leave Petitions preferred by the respondents before the Hon’ble Apex court were also dismissed

2.5) Even after the verdict of the Apex Court, respondents did not extend the benefits to the said petitioners and no payments were made to them till date. Several Contempt Petitions were filed and thereafter benefits were extended to them.

2.6) G.O(Ms) No.62 dated 09.03.2015 made amendments in paragraph 3(ii) of the G.O(Ms)No.216, dated 22.03.1993 and the same were incorporated in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. As per the impugned clause 7(3) of the Government Order, the special teachers/physical education, teachers are not entitled for selection grade/special grade applicable to the the post of Primary School Headmaster.

2.7) It is settled law that any person aggrieved by the order of the Government approached the Court and the Court granted favourable order, the same would be applicable to other identical person. But the impugned Government Order take away the right of petitioner from getting the benefit under G.O(MS) No.216 dated 22.03.1983.

2.8) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments :

(a) The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in State of Karnataka Vs. N.Parameshwarappa reported in 2003 (12) SCC 192 as follows:

"At the same time we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the Court".

(b) The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in Govind Ram Purohit Vs. Jagjiwan Chandra reported in 1999 SCC (L & S) 788 as follows:

"Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. There was no point in waiting for each and every person to file a petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason why we should