Judgment :- (This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.2352 of 2001 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records from the respondents and quash the impugned orders by the first respondent herein in Government Letter No.27621/S2/2000-I School Education Department Dated 17.10.2000, confirming the second respondent's order in Na.Ka.2671/Ed/2/98, dated 13.12.1999 and direct the respondents to treat the period from 13.07.1995 to 03.05.1996 as duty, with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 13.12.1999 denying the salary from the date of transfer to the date of rejoining that is from 13.07.1995 to 03.05.1996. 2. According to the petitioner, he was transferred from Anthiyur West Primary School to Devar Malai, Panchayat Union School, Erode District by order of the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 27.06.1995. The said order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner in OA No.3549 of 1995 and Interim Stay was granted by the State Administrative Tribunal by order dated 07.07.1995. The Interim Order granted was subsequently extended until further orders by Order dated 21.07.1995 and the main OA itself was allowed by the State Administrative Tribunal on 14.03.1996. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner reported to duty immediately after the Stay was granted by State Administrative Tribunal, but he was not allowed to work in the school. There is no contra statement on the part of the Department, that the petitioner failed to report duty immediately after the grant of Stay by the State Administrative Tribunal dated 07.07.1995. Since the order of transfer was stayed and ultimately set aside, it has to be treated that the transfer order was not in existence and the petitioner shall be treated as if he had served in the school with salary and other benefits. The order of the second respondent rejecting the salary for the period in which he was not allowed to work from 13.07.1995 to 03.05.1996, cannot be put against the petitioner. Consequently, the order of the second respondent dated 13.12.1999, denying the salary and other benefits from 13.07.1995 to 03.05.1996 shall stand set aside and the period be treated as duty period with salary and other service benefits. Consequently, the order of the second respondent dated 13.12.1999, denying the salary and other benefits from 13.07.1995 to 03.05.1996 shall stand set aside and the period be treated as duty period with salary and other service benefits. The salary and other benefits payable to the petitioner shall be paid by the respondents within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.