- (1.)BY consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.
(2.)HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, who made submissions on getting instructions.
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 23.7.2007 in so far as it grants permission to the second respondent to pay salary to the petitioner by treating him as Junior Assistant from the date of the said order viz., 23.7.2007 instead of the date of original appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant on 16.9.1991, the date on which he ought to have been appointed in the higher post of Junior Assistant/Typist since he was qualified as per G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 3.8.1989.

According to the petitioner, his father Srinivasan who was working as Nursing Assistant in Tiruvarur Municipality died on 5.3.1991 while he was in service. At that time, the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Junior Assistant as he had completed his Plus Two in the year 1990 and he made application to the second respondent Municipality on10.1.1991 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Considering the application of the petitioner, the second respondent appointed the petitioner as Office Assistant on 16.9.1991 in which post the petitioner joined on 23.9.1991. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 3.8.1989 which was in existence at that time, the petitioner being the dependent, was entitled to appointment on compassionate ground to the higher post of Junior Assistant since at that time, he possessed the qualifications required for Junior Assistant and the appointment of the petitioner in 1991 as Office Assistant is against the said G.O. The petitioner has made representation to the respondents on 9.11.1991 onwards but, the respondents have not passed orders in respect of his claim of appointment as Junior Assistant and the petitioner ultimately approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.8026 of 2000 which was subsequently transferred to this Court as W.P.No.41640 of 2005. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, by order dated 9.4.2007, has considered the implication of G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 3.8.1989 and also the subsequent recommendations of the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Thanjavur dated 13.6.1997 recommending to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai that the petitioner should be appointed to the higher post of Junior Assistant, and taking into consideration that the petitioner was eligible for the appointment as Junior Assistant even at the time when he was originally appointed as Office Assistant, has passed the following order: "In view of the said recommendations and having regard to the eligibility of the petitioner in accordance with the said Government Order, the first respondent is directed to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.1.2000 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order".

(3.)IT was, thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent on 23.7.2007. In the impugned order the first respondent, while accepting the case of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 3.8.1989, has however granted permission to the second respondent to pay salary to the petitioner as Junior Assistant from the date of impugned order viz., 23.7.2007, instead of granting the said benefit from the date of his original appointment viz., 16.9.1991. IT is, that portion of the impugned order, which is under challenge.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Lita Srinivasan that the petitioner himself has chosen to approach the Tribunal only in the year 2000 even though his original appointment as Office Assistant was 16.9.1991 and therefore, he will not be entitled to the benefit of appointment as Junior Assistant from the date of original appointment viz., 16.9.1991 and according to her, the impugned order which is challenged is not unsustainable.