16.By stating the aforesaid, the learned counsel for employees would further contend that, in fact, the said Full Bench judgment in Dhanasekaran's case, though subsequently was reviewed by another Full Bench in Secretary to Government Vs. Marisamy dated 30.05.2017, which was appealed by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where, stay has been granted, therefore, such a larger issue can be decided later on by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, insofar as the present issue raised in this batch of cases are concerned, according to the learned counsel for employees, this has not been dealt with or not covered under the import of the Full Bench judgment in Dhanasekaran's case. Therefore, this can be independently considered in view of the law declared by this Court in various orders passed by the learned Single Judge Benches of this Court in the year 2008 wherein appeal filed before the Division Bench, who also has upheld the view taken by the Writ Court in W.A.Nos.47 and 385 of 2010, by judgment dated 23.06.2010. This was also unsuccessfully appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.26605 of 2010 dated 27.09.2010, therefore, the quietus has already been given insofar as the employees, who are covered under G.O.Ms.No.198 or under G.O.Ms.No.199 and since these employees admittedly covered under G.O.Ms.No.198, their issue has been given a quietus and that is not covered by the Full Bench judgment. Therefore, under the shadow of Full Bench judgment, the petitioner Management cannot take any shelter to deny the benefit of time scale of pay to these employees for the three years period from 2003 and 2006. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the employees would contend that, the employees are entitled to get such benefit and the same since has been quantified in the computation petitions, no interference is called for.
