Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.) Elipe Dharma Rao, J. This writ petition is filed seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent relating to the order, dated 11.7.2002 passed in T.A.No.531/93 (W.P.No.10861/1986) and that of the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No.162, Revenue, dated 12.2.1986, quash the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents to include the names of the petitioners herein in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars of Salem District for the year 1975 by applying the rule of communal rotation and rule of reservation and grant consequential service and monetary benefits including higher pensionary benefits. 2. Originally, the petitioners filed W.P.No.10861 of 1986 seeking for a direction to include their names in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars of Salem District for the year 1975 and to quash the proceedings of the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No.162, Revenue Department, dated 12.2.1986, by which the Government rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners. The said writ petition was subsequently transferred to the fourth respondent Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T.A.No.531 of 1993. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners and dismissed the said T.A. by the order, dated 11.7.2002, on the ground that the reopening of the concluded case will lead to complications, as there was inaction on the part of the petitioners immediately after the earlier rejection. 3. In a similar writ petition, viz., W.P.No.875 of 1978, which was decided on 28.10.1980, when the names of the petitioners therein were not included in the list on the ground that the rule of reservation is not applicable, the High Court, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances and the amended rule, dated 20.6.1977, which was given retrospective effect from 11.7.1967, upheld the rules of reservation and restored inclusion of the names of the petitioners therein in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1972. 4. 4. In the instant case, though the claim of the petitioners was rejected twice earlier, in pursuance of the order passed in the similar writ petition, the petitioners filed a second revision in the year 1981, and only on 13.6.1983, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the second respondent herein, recommended for inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1975, to the Government of Tamil Nadu, i.e. the third respondent herein. But the third respondent failed to consider the abovesaid recommendation till 1985. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3681 of 1985, which was disposed of on 16.4.1985 with a direction to the third respondent to pass orders on the revision petition of the petitioners on or before 30.6.1985. Even thereafter, the Government failed to pass any orders on the revision petition, but instead filed W.M.P.No.10269 of 1985 and got the time extended from 30.6.1985 till 30.9.1985. Thereafter, they filed another petition in W.M.P.No.15539 of 1985 seeking further extension of time to comply with the directions issued in W.P.No.3681 of 1985 and accordingly time was extended upto 31.12.1985. Once again, on 19.12.1985 another petition was filed seeking extension of time by a further period of three months i.e. upto 31.3.1986. Finally, the Government rejected the revision filed by the petitioners, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.162, Revenue Department, dated 12.2.1986, on the ground that the claim of the petitioners had been rejected twice earlier and more so, it would not be advisable to revise the seniority list that was prepared eight years back as it would lead to administrative difficulties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.10861 of 1986, which was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T.A.No.531 of 1993. The said T.A. was dismissed by the order of the Tribunal, dated 11.7.2002, against which, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reasons given by the respondents in rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioners are not justified, as the amendment to Rule 6 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.1256, Revenue, dated 20.6.1977, was given retrospective effect from 20.6.1967. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reasons given by the respondents in rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioners are not justified, as the amendment to Rule 6 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.1256, Revenue, dated 20.6.1977, was given retrospective effect from 20.6.1967. Further, there is delay on the part of the Government in issuing amendment to the Special Rules, since the amendment to Rule 22 of General Rules for Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service was issued by G.O.Ms.No.1588 as early as on 11.7.1967. The learned counsel further submitted that the similar claim made by some other persons for inclusion of their names in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for Salem District for the year 1972 has been upheld by the Government in G.O.Ms.NO.1536, Revenue, dated 07.7.1981 pursuant to the judgment of this court in W.P.No.875 of 1978 and, therefore, the Government would have extended the very same benefit to the petitioners. Moreover, the Tribunal though held that the petitioners are entitled for the said benefit, refused to grant the relief on the ground of laches. Therefore, on that ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the amended rule, the petitioners are not entitled for the extension of Rule of reservation to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. But he is not able to explain as to how the order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.875 of 1998, dated 28.10.1980 is not applicable to the petitioners. 7. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, we find that though initially the claim of the petitioners was rejected by the respondents in the year 1975, they filed an appeal, which was rejected on 06.10.1976, and thereafter, they filed a revision, which was also rejected by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1631, Revenue Department, dated 22.8.1977. In the meantime, positive direction came to be issued in a similar writ petition in W.P.875 of 1978 which was disposed of on 28.10.1980, and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners filed a second revision before the third respondent in the year 1981. Thereafter, on 13.6.1983, the Special Commissioner Land Revenue recommended the names of the petitioners for inclusion in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1975. Thereafter, on 13.6.1983, the Special Commissioner Land Revenue recommended the names of the petitioners for inclusion in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1975. As the said recommendation was pending consideration before the Government and suitable orders were not passed by the Government, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P.No.3681 of 1985 seeking for a direction to pass orders on the revision petition filed by them. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.4.1985 with a direction to the Government to dispose of their revision on or before 30.6.1985. The Government, instead of disposing of the said revision, as directed by the High Court, sought for further extension of time thrice to enable them to dispose of the matter on the ground that they have been contemplating amendment of the rules. Ultimately, the Government rejected it by the order, dated 12.2.1986, which was impugned in W.P.No.10861 of 1986. 8. Therefore, on the basis of the abovestated facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the Tribunal is not correct in rejecting the relief on the ground of laches. As seen from the abovestated facts, from the date of disposal of W.P.No.875 of 1978, i.e. 28.10.1980, the petitioners have been pursuing their remedies before the Government, but ultimately, the Government from the year 1981 onwards, dragged on the matter on one pretext or other. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed laches or delay in approaching the court or pursuing their remedies. Further, the reason given by the Tribunal in rejecting the petition is illegal. 9. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the Tribunal order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the Government is also set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that all the petitioners have retired from service. In that case, the petitioners are entitled only for inclusion of their names in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1975 and on that basis for nominal promotion and for consequential monetary benefits, to which they are entitled in accordance with law. This exercise has to be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.