Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.11.2000 made in W.P. No.2014 of 2000, in and by which, the learned Judge directed the State Government to sanction the salary bills prepared and forwarded by the school management. In the said Order, the learned single Judge also directed the Management to forward the pay bills within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. 2. Heard learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for contesting first respondent. 3. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the direction issued by the learned single Judge is justified or not. 4. The case of the first respondent herein is that he was appointed as Tamil Pandit (Grade II) in the second respondent/school on 28.6.1962 and he was promoted as P.G. Assistant on 3.6.1993. It is not in dispute that he was to retire from service on 10.6.1999 on reaching the age of superannuation. As per the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education Department, dated 27.10.1998, if a Teacher is happened to retire from service in the middle of the academic year, he should be given extension till the end of the academic year. Since the request of the first respondent herein was not acceded to, he approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.2014 of 2000. The learned single Judge, without adverting to the relevant details, viz., whether the writ petitioner worked beyond 10.6.1999 and whether he is entitled to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education Department, dated 27.10.1988, merely following the observation made in the order passed by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.1179/93 etc., dated 16.9.1994, issued a positive direction to the State Government for sanction of salary bills forwarded by the Management. 5. Learned Government Advocate, by drawing our attention to the relevant fact that the first respondent herein/writ petitioner had been allowed to work in the School by the Management itself only for a period of two days, namely, 11.09.1999 and 12.09.1999, and from 13.09.1999 onwards, he entered on leave, thereafter, till the end of the academic year, that is, 31.05.2000, he did not return to the school to discharge his work, hence, he is not entitled to the benefits provided under the G.O. referred above. It is also brought to our notice that no such request was ever made by the Management or pending in the Department and no approval was made by the Department for his continuance on the basis of the recommendation of the Management. The above factual details have not been controverted by the first respondent. In the light of the fact that the first respondent herein/writ petitioner did not work in the School in question after attaining the age of superannuation namely 10.06.1999, except for two days, that is, 11.09.1999 and 12.09.1999, and also taking note of the fact that the Management had not sent any proposal for approval by the Department, we are of the view that the learned Singe Judge is not justified in passing the order merely following the direction of the Division Bench dated 16.09.1994. In the light of the factual details as mentioned above, we hold that the direction made in the Division Bench order, dated 16.09.1994, is not applicable to the case on hand and the learned Judge has committed an error in directing the State Government for sanctioning of his salary bills prepared and forwarded by the School Management, when the Management had not sent any representation or bill as stated in the order of the learned single Judge. 6. In the light of what is stated above, the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.11.2000, made in W.P.No.2014 of 2000, is set aside. Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.