Judgment :- (The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.) The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondent pertaining to its impugned order bearing No.8166/PaPi3/TNSTC (V.Div.2)/98, dated 24.07.2002, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to incorporate the petitioner's date of entry into service as 25.04.1996 in the service records. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:- It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the respondent Corporation as a driver on 25.04.1996 on casual basis. Thereafter, he has been working continuously without any break. According to the terms of the existing settlement between the workmen and the respondent management, if a casual workman completes 240 days continuous service, he is entitled to be made a permanent employee. Apart from the settlement, in terms of Sec.3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, the petitioner was entitled to be made a permanent employee and confirmed in service after completion of 480 days of service in two calendar years. Even though, the petitioner had completed more than 480 days of service as on 15.01.1998, the respondent has not confirmed the petitioner in service till 2000. The petitioner had filed a petition before the Inspector of Labour, Vellore, who is the authority under the Act to accord permanent status to the petitioner. The said Authority had issued notice to the respondent to appear before him and also to produce the records relating to the petitioner's service. Thereafter, the respondent had issued an order of appointment, dated 08.02.2001, regularising the petitioner's service with effect from 16.01.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.1735-20-1895-25-2770. The said order was produced before the Authority and the Authority concerned by his order, dated 17.02.2001, had disposed of the petition. 4. It is stated that the respondent had regularised the petitioner's service from 16.01.1998, and in the salary slip (Pay Bill) issued to the petitioner, the date of joining has also been mentioned as 16.01.1998 instead of 25.04.1996. The said order was produced before the Authority and the Authority concerned by his order, dated 17.02.2001, had disposed of the petition. 4. It is stated that the respondent had regularised the petitioner's service from 16.01.1998, and in the salary slip (Pay Bill) issued to the petitioner, the date of joining has also been mentioned as 16.01.1998 instead of 25.04.1996. Even though the services of the petitioner had been regularised with effect from 16.01.1998, the date of joining in service ought to be 25.04.1996 only. Having found that there was a discrepancy in the salary slip, the petitioner had made a representation to the respondent and he had also made a representation to the Inspector of Labour,Vellore, on 22.10.2001. Since the representation had not been disposed of by the respondent, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18882 of 2002 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to incorporate the date of entry into service of the petitioner as 25.04.1996 in the service records instead of 16.01.1998. A final order was passed directing the respondent to consider the representation, dated 19.09.2001, and to dispose of the same within a specified time. However, the respondent by its memorandum bearing No.8166/PaPi3/TNSTC(V.Div.2)98, dated 24.07.2002, had stated that the petitioner's date of regularisation had been revised from 16.01.1998 to 21.05.1997 and subsequently regularised the petitioner service with effect from 16.01.1998. The respondent instead of altering and amending the petitioner's date of joining as 25.04.1996, had stated that the date of joining of the petitioner was construed to be 21.05.1997. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated as follows :- "7. The name of the petitioner herein being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Tiruvanamalai, for the post of Driver, he was called for interview on 21.11.1995 and on selection he was permitted for duty as C.L. Driver on 25.04.1996 and posted at Cheyyaru. When his case was taken for regularisation due to his unsatisfactory performance report, by the Branch Manager, Cheyyaru, he was not considered for regularisation. Similarly again on 10.05.1999 due to his unsatisfactory performance he was not again considered for regularisation. Only based on the satisfactory performance report, dated 14.04.2000, of the Branch Manager, Kancheepuram, he was brought into daily paid with effect from 21.05.2000 vide proceedings No.8166/PS3/TNSTC (VPM;DVN:II)/98, dated 31.05.2000. Similarly again on 10.05.1999 due to his unsatisfactory performance he was not again considered for regularisation. Only based on the satisfactory performance report, dated 14.04.2000, of the Branch Manager, Kancheepuram, he was brought into daily paid with effect from 21.05.2000 vide proceedings No.8166/PS3/TNSTC (VPM;DVN:II)/98, dated 31.05.2000. Further, the petitioner herein filed the petition before the Inspector of Labour, Vellore, requesting to regularise his service with effect from 01.04.1997. Based on the oral instructions of the Inspector of Labour, Vellore, the daily paid order was revised giving effect from 16.01.1998 vide proceedings No.8166/PS3/TNSTC(V-D-II)/98, dated 03.01.2001 and again after mutual discussion with the Inspector of Labour the petitioner was brought into monthly cadre with effect from 16.01.1998 by virtue of the same proceedings and ultimately the case was closed by the Inspector of Labour, Vellore, as settled out of Court by an order, dated 12.02.2001. 8. I humbly submit that mutually the date of regularisation was agreed to be 16.01.1998 by the petitioner herein and the Respondent Transport Corporation before the Inspector of Labour, Vellore vide proceeding No.8166/PS3/TNSTC(V-D-II)/98, dated 08.02.2001, and therefore the petitioner's date of joining service is worked out as 240 days prior to 16.01.1998 and the date of joining services arrived as 21.05.1997. Further, the arrears amount payable from 16.01.1998 to 08.02.2001 is calculated as Rs.45,565.75 and the same was also being received by the petitioner herein. 9. I further submit that the Petitioner herein having mutually agreed to accept his date of regularisation as 16.01.1998 before the Inspector of Labour, Vellore, this ought to have been considered as having joined the service of the Respondent Corporation 240 days prior to 16.01.1998. According to the terms of the existing settlement between the workmen and the respondent corporation, in the service records of the petitioner corporation it is recorded as 21.05.1997 by the Respondent Corporation which is only based on the mutually agreed date of regularisation and the terms of settlement between the workman and the Respondent Corporation." 6. On a perusal of the records available and based on the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondent, it is seen that there was a settlement between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation under which it was agreed that the petitioner would be regularised from 16.01.1998. On a perusal of the records available and based on the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondent, it is seen that there was a settlement between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation under which it was agreed that the petitioner would be regularised from 16.01.1998. Admittedly, there has been no settlement with regard to the date of joining of the petitioner as 25.04.1996. Even according to the respondent, the said date of 25.04.1996, is the actual date of joining and the petitioner's actual entry into service was as CL Driver. If that be the case, and in view of the fact that there was no agreement with regard to the date of joining of the petitioner in service, the accepted position would be that the date of joining of the petitioner in service could be taken to be as 25.04.1996 only, even though the date of regularisation was mutually agreed to be on 16.01.1998. 7. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no monetary benefits are being claimed from the respondent in view of the present writ petition. The request to enter the date of entry into service as 25.04.1996, is only for claiming retirement benefits including gratuity which would be calculated based on the date of entry into service. Therefore, when the actual date of joining into service by the petitioner is accepted to be 25.04.1996, the respondent cannot notionally fix the date as 16.01.1998, even though the said date of 16.01.1998 has been taken to be the date of regularisation of the petitioner in service. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is allowed. No costs.