Sodhi, C.J:— This order will dispose of a bunch of seventeen Writ Appeal Nos. 27, 328, 355, 420, 451, 510, 531, 537, 572, 573, 607, 669, 893, 925, 927, 945 and 956 of 2004 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since argument were addressed only in W.A No. 27 of 2004, the facts have been taken from this case.

2. Respondents in all these appeals were high school assistants working in Government/Private Schools. They all had joined service as primary teachers and thereafter were promoted as high school assistants. After reviewing the promotional prospects of the employees, grade promotion was recommended in cases where they, employees were stagnating on the same post without any promotional avenues. The Government, by its order, dated 7 August, 1986, (Exhibit P3), modified its earlier orders and decided that “primary school teachers including language teachers in the Primary section on being appointed or promoted to High School after having put in more than 10 years of service in the primary section will be given high school assistants grade I on completion of a total service of 20 years and senior grade on completion of 30 years”. It was further decided that “primary school teachers working as Senior grade Teachers and primary school Headmasters when promoted as high school assistants will be given high school assistants Grade I counting an aggregate service of 20 years”. Again, by order, dated 18 January, 1991, (Exhibit P4), the Government examined the matter in detail and it was decided that “primary school teachers including language teachers appointed as high school assistants will be allowed the scale of pay of primary teachers (selection grade) on Rs. 1250-2230 on completion of a total service of 25 years reckoning the total service in primary and high school sections together without any change in the designation of the post held by them”. On the basis of the aforesaid Government Order, the respondents were given the higher grade promotions on the post of high school assistants after counting the service rendered by them as primary teachers. The Government, thereafter, reconsidered the matter and on the basis of some observations made by a Full Bench of this Court in Krishna Panicker v. State of Kerala (W.A No. 844 of 1992 decided on 18 November, 1993), 1993 (2) K.L.T 1058, decided by its order, dated 19 October, 2000, that with effect from the date of the decision of the Full Bench, the high school assistants were not entitled to count their primary school service for the grant of higher grade. The Government Order, dated 7 August, 1986, was held not to be in force with effect from 18 November, 1993, the date on which the Full Bench decided Krishna Panicker case (vide supra). To the same effect, the Government took a decision by its order, dated 31 March, 2001, wherein also it decided that high school assistants were not eligible for higher grade by counting their primary school service with effect from 18 November, 1993. As a consequence of these Government Orders, dated 19 October, 2000 and 31 March, 2001, higher grade granted to the respondents after counting their service as primary school teachers, was withdrawn and the excess amount paid to them was sought to be recovered. It is against these orders that the respondents filed O.P No. 7348 of 2003 which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge wno allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein to restore the benefits to the respondents flowing from the orders, dated 7 August, 1986, and 18 January, 1991 (Exhibits P3 and P4). Hence, this writ appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As already observed, the high school assistants were given the higher grade after counting their service in the primary school and that has now been withdrawn on the basis of some observations of the Full Bench in Krishna Panicker case (vide supra).

4. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the observations made by the Full Bench in Krishna Panicker case (vide supra), lay down in absolute terms that a High School Assistant is not entitled to count his primary school service for the purpose of grant of higher grade?

5. Having carefully gone through the judgment of the Full Bench in Krishna Panicker case (vide supra), we are clearly of the view that the observations made in that judgment were in a totally different context where the learned Judges were interpreting Cl. 10(i) of Government Orders, dated 16 September, 1985 and November 1, 1989 which were differently worded from Exhibits P3 and P4. The relevant clauses pertaining to the time bound grade promotions which were under consideration of the Full Bench read as under:

Clause 10(i) of Government Order, dated 16 September, 1985:

“10(i). Employees in the revised scales of pay ranging from Rs. 550-800 to Rs. 1150-2270 will be allowed promotion to higher grade on completion of 10 years of service and a second higher grade after either 10 years of service in the first higher grade or a total service of 20 years in the two grades together, whichever is earlier.”

Clause 10(i) of Government Order, dated 1 November, 1989:

“10(i). Employees in the revised scales of pay ranging from Rs. 750-1025 to Rs. 1050-1830 will be allowed promotion to a higher grade on completion or 10 years of service, a second higher grade after either 10 years of service in the first higher grade or a total service of 20 years in the two grades together, whichever is earlier and, a third higher grade on completion of a total service of 25 years in the three grades together on the following pattern”.

While interpreting the aforesaid clauses, the Full Bench observed in Para. 6 of the judgment as under:

“Higher scales of pay were recommended by both the Pay Commissions after reviewing the promotional prospects of the employees. Grade promotion was recommended in cases where the employees were stagnating in one post without any promotion. Therefore, it is clear that wherever there is a chance of promotion normally it was not necessary to grant grade promotion. By Cl. 10(i) of Exhibit P2 the employees are allowed promotion to higher grade on completion of 10 years of service. Second higher grade is to be given after either 10, years of service in the first higher grade or ‘a total service of 20 years in the two grades together’. If this clause is analyzed it is clear that the first higher grade is envisaged for those employees who have completed 10 years of service. There is no indication that the requirement of 10 years of service is in the lower category, viz., as lower primary teacher or equivalent post. This is clear from the second part of Cl. 10(i) where the requirement or 20 years' service is in the two grades together’ which can only mean that the first grade in the existing category in which the employee is posted as well as the first higher grade. Cl. 10(i) of Exhibit P8 is also similarly worded and promotion to higher grade is to be allowed ‘on completion of 0 years of service, a second higher grade after either 10 years of service in the first higher grade or a total service of 20 years in the two grades together’. The third higher grade given on the fifth Pay Commission is to be allowed ‘on completion of a total service of 25 years in the three grades together’. Thus, it is clear that the grades mentioned in these two clauses can only be the grade in which the concerned employee was posted at the relevant time.”

Then in Para. 10, the learned Judges concluded aslinder:

“Accordingly, we hold that for granting senior grade to promoted high school assistants their service in the lower category as P.D Teacher or L.P.S Teacher or U.P.S Teacher is not to be taken into account. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeals and original petitions before us in the light of this finding”.

It was in the background of the aforesaid two clauses that observations were made by the learned Judges of the Full Bench that the service as primary teacher could not be counted while granting the grade as a high school assistant. The Full Bench did not lay down as an absolute rule that the service rendered as a primary teacher could never be counted for the purpose of higher grade as high school assistant. It is always open to the Government to grant the benefit of time bound grade promotions by counting the primary school service of the teachers, Such a provision was made in the Government Orders, dated 7 August, 1986 and 18 January, 1991 (Exts. P3 and P4 respectively) and these orders were issued when the earlier orders, dated September 16, 1985 and November 1, 1989, which were under consideration before the Full Bench were in existence. Having-made such a provision, the Government, under a mistaken impression that the Full Bench had laid down as a rule that the primary school service could never be counted for the purpose of granting higher grade as high school assistant, withdrew the same. As already observed, the Full Bench had not laid down any such absolute rule. It had only interpreted the relevant clauses of the Government Orders dated September 16, 1985 and November 1, 1989 which were under consideration before it. The Government Orders Exhibits P3 and P4 were not considered by the Full Bench and the language used in these orders is different from the one used in the earlier orders which were under consideration before the Full Bench. Therefore, what is said by the Full Bench in regard to the Government Orders dated September 16, 1985 and November 1, 1989 cannot apply to the Government orders, dated 7 August, 1986 and 18 January, 1991. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the benefit granted by the Government Orders, dated 7 August, 1986 and 18 January, 1991, could not be withdrawn without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned teachers and on a wrong interpretation of the Full Bench judgment. We have therefore, no hesitation in upholding the findings of the learned Single Judge and quashing the Government orders, dated 19 October, 2000 and 31 March, 2001 (Exhibits P10 and P11) and directing the appellants to restore the benefits granted to the respondents by orders, dated 7 August, 1986 and 18 January, 1991. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals fail and the same stand dismissed with no order as to costs.