Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he had joined as a B.T. Assistant in the District Board High School, in the year 1957. He was promoted as a High School Headmaster in the year 1962 and as a Higher Secondary Headmaster in the year 1987, and with effect from 3. 92, he was functioning as a District Educational Officer. 3. From the year 1966, the District Board schools were taken over by the Government and with effect from 4. 70 the staff of the District Board Schools were absorbed as Government servants. In the year 1978, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1968 integrating the staff of the District Board Schools and the Government Schools, with the specific direction that all promotions should be given thereafter, only on the basis of the integrated seniority. The said Government order has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Government had also issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.98, shifting the base date from 4. 1970 to 11. 1978. Since the said Government order was affecting the promotions and other benefits of the `B wing staff, it was challenged before the Courts of law. Since the said Government order had been quashed, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1583 and 1584 in the year 1988. Since, it was similar in terms as that of G.O.Ms.No.98, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had set aside the Government Order and a direction had been issued to grant promotions as per the integrated seniority list. The order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1564 of 1990 (batch), dated 24. 1998. The orders passed by the Supreme Court was given effect to after a long delay. In the meantime, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, the petitioner has suffered the loss of further promotions and the consequential monetary benefits. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.3427 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.5899 of 2007. 4. Thus, the petitioner has suffered the loss of further promotions and the consequential monetary benefits. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.3427 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.5899 of 2007. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner, dated 09.02.2001, is directed to be disposed of by the first respondent, on merits, within a specified period, in view of G.O.(Ms) No.130, School Education (A1) Department, dated 8. 2006 and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Teachers Association Vs. Association of the Heads of the Government (B Wing) High and Higher Secondary Schools and others ( AIR 1998 SC 2267 ). 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, without going into the merits of case, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 09.02.2001, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been disposed of till date, in view of G.O.(Ms) No.130, School Education (A1) Department, dated 8. 2006, and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Teachers Association Vs. Association of the Heads of the Government (B Wing) High and Higher Secondary Schools and others ( AIR 1998 SC 2267 ). The petitioner is directed to furnish to the first respondent a copy of the representation, dated 09.02.2001, the Government Order and the decision cited above, along with a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.