former writ petition the petitioner had in fact approached the Government and her request was rejected as per Ext.P7 order. It is thus obvious from the facts expatiated earlier that in the former writ petition the challenge of the petitioner is against Ext.P7 and in the latter writ petition the challenge of the petitioner is against Ext.P8 order. Evidently, the petitioners herein had approached the Government with the aforesaid claims relying on the decision in Unninarayanan v. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (2) KLT 604 . Virtually, their claims were rejected holding that G.O.(P) No.56/2011/G.Edn dated 26.2.2011 got no retrospective effect. True that the appeals preferred against the decision in Unninarayanan 's case (supra) and connected cases were allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments were set aside. At the same time, it is evident from the decision in Sneha Cheriyan 's case (supra) that those cases were disposed of with specific directions. As noticed hereinbefore, in the former writ petition, the decision in Ext.P7 was rendered prior to the judgment in Sneha Cheriyan 's case (supra) and in the latter writ petition, the petitioner is yet
