Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The petitioner had filed O.A.No.3906 of 2003 for reguarisation of his service period from 27. 1999 to 1. 2001 as eligible leave and from 1. 2001 to 15. 2002 as compulsory wait by quashing the order dated 9. 2002. The petitioner, who was working as Head Constable had been deputed to Secretariat. Subsequently, he went on medical leave from 27. 1999 and he had applied for extension of medical leave by enclosing a Doctors certificate and by sending the same through Registered Post to the Secretariat. However it appears in the meantime, the police department had passed an order recalling him from Secretariat by order dated 29. 2000. The case of the petitioner is that such order dated 29. 2000 had never been served. No material is produced by the respondent to come to any different conclusion. Thereafter the petitioner reported for duty before the Secretariat on 1. 2001, which is apparent from the letter available at page 3 of the typed set. However the Secretariat authorities did not permit the petitioner to rejoin as in the meantime the order dated 29. 2000 had been issued recalling the petitioner to his parent department. 2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, rushed to the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.646 of 2001 wherein he contended that there was no justification to repatriate him to the parent department. The case of the petitioner was also to the effect that though he had reported for duty before the Commissioner, no formal order had been passed permitting him to rejoin duty. Be that as it may, the Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.646 of 2001 by observing that there was no illegality in repatriating the petitioner to the parent department. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5033 of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13. 2001. The High court while disposing of the writ petition passed the following order:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. On consideration, we find that there is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal, so as to call for interference. According to the petitioner, he has not been given any posting. The High court while disposing of the writ petition passed the following order:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. On consideration, we find that there is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal, so as to call for interference. According to the petitioner, he has not been given any posting. In that view of the matter, if posting is not given, it is expected that the concerned authority will give posting tot he petitioner immediately and also proceed as per law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of." Even though the said order was passed on 16th March, 2001, no order posting the petitioner at any particular place was issued by the police department. At that stage, the petitioner issued a lawyers notice dated 4. 2001 claiming that he should be given some posting. On the basis of that letter, the State Government wrote to the Police Commissioner for giving appropriate posting. However in spite of such correspondence from the Government, since there was no formal posting order, the petitioner issued a further notice on 14. 2001 stating that contempt proceedings will be initiated and thereafter contempt application No.427 of 2001 was filed in the High Court. 3. In the counter affidavit, a stand was taken that the Commissioner of Police had issued revised posting orders posting the petitioner in 21st Platoon of Armed Reserved Police in Chennai City as per order dated 29. 2001 and the petitioner was allowed to rejoin duty on 29. 2001. Thereafter the petitioner was not allowed to discharge any duty with effect from 10. 2001 on the ground that the petitioner had earlier gone on medical leave and no medical certificate was produced to show his fitness and therefore the petitioner was required to appear before the Board. In the above process, ultimately the petitioner was again given another posting order on 26. 2002. However, in the contempt petition it was ordered as follows:- "3. Even though the applicant appeared before the Medical Board on 20.5.2002, it is brought to our notice that the joining order was issued only on 16. 2002. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered on the part of the respondent state that the delay secured due to some administrative reasons. 4. Even though the applicant appeared before the Medical Board on 20.5.2002, it is brought to our notice that the joining order was issued only on 16. 2002. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered on the part of the respondent state that the delay secured due to some administrative reasons. 4. We hereby direct that the respondent State shall proceed on the basis as if the applicant joined duty on 15. 2002 and he shall be entitled for all benefits as per the service rules. 5. The applicant seems to have some grievance against the respondent State and according to him, only because of the respondent State, he was not able to join earlier, because of which, he has sustained monetary loss, apart from losing other service benefits. We give liberty to the applicant to make a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, within a period of four weeks from today, before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Once such representation is received, the Commissioner of Police shall consider and dispose of the claims made therein, within a period of eight weeks thereof. With the above observation the contempt application is closed." Subsequently, in accordance with such observation by the High Court, the petitioner filed a detailed representation indicating the facts and circumstances. Thereafter an order was passed on 9. 2002, which was challenged before the Tribunal. In the said order dated 9. 2002, the Commissioner of Police had treated the period from 27. 1999 to 112. 2000 as medical leave; from 112. 2000 to 1. 2001 as eligible leave including EOL, from 1. 2001 to 29. 2001 as eligible leave including EOL; from 29. 2001 to 10. 2001 as duty period and from 10. 2001 to 15. 2002 as eligible leave including EOL. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the above order so far as it relates to the period between 1. 2001 and 29. 2001 and the period between 10. 2001 and 15. 2002 and filed O.A.No.3906 of 2003. The Tribunal, however, did not interfere with the order passed by the Police Commissioner and the original application was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the fact that the petitioner has been repatriated to the parent department was never made known to him before 1. 2001. The Tribunal, however, did not interfere with the order passed by the Police Commissioner and the original application was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the fact that the petitioner has been repatriated to the parent department was never made known to him before 1. 2001. This aspect has not at all been considered by any of the authorities nor there is any material to indicate that the order of repatriation was actually served on the petitioner. Moreover it appears that after the petitioner reported for duty in the Secretariat on 1. 2001 no subsequent order of posting was given and that too in spite of the direction given by the High Court. Ultimately when the contempt application was moved, a stand was taken that a revised posting order was issued on 29. 2001. However nothing has been indicated anywhere as to why the posting order was not immediately given after it was made known by the petitioner that no posting order had been served. In such view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the period between 1. 2001 and 29. 2001 should be treated as compulsory wait. 6. Next comes the period between 10. 2001 and 15. 2002. Even in the counter affidavit which was filed in the contempt petition, it had been admitted that the petitioner had discharged duty from 29. 2001 to 10. 2001. However nothing is indicated as to why the petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duty from 10. 2001 till 15. 2002. It appears that the departmental authorities were insisting on fitness certificates. Since the petitioner had already reported on 1. 2001 and subsequently, the medical Board had examined him and there was nothing adverse in such report of the medical Board, we fail to understand as to why the period from 10. 2001 to 15. 2002 should not have been treated as duty period. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal and departmental authorities and in modification thereof, we direct that the period from 1. 2001 to 29. 2001 and the period from 10. 2001 to 15. 2002 should be treated as compulsory wait. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.