Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated that the petitioner had joined the service of the Revenue Department as a Surveyor-cum-Draftsmen on consolidated pay in the year 1983. The petitioner had been appointed in Sivagangai District Survey Unit pursuant to his selection in the year 1983. In the seniority list of Surveyors/Draftsmen in Sivagangai, dated 23. 89, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.357. On 312. 91, the petitioner was granted time scale of pay on the basis of seniority, vide order bearing No.Na.Ka.A1/23984/91-(1). On 30.9.94, the petitioner was transferred to Pudukkottai on mutual transfer in the place of K.R.Sasikala and the petitioner had assumed charge at Pudukkottai on 194. Thereafter, on 18. 95, the third respondent had issued an order bearing No.Na.Ka.A1/7296/95, containing the revised seniority list of Surveyors/Draftsmen in Pudukkottai. No notice had been given to the petitioner with regard to the revision of the seniority list. Thereafter, the third respondent had issued the final seniority list on Surveyors/Draftsmen in Pudukkottai bearing No.Na.Ka.A1/7296/95, on 20.95. The name of the petitioner did not find a place in the said list. Based on the seniority list, dated 20.12.95, reversion orders were issued to 43 Surveyors/Draftsmen, vide the order of the third respondent bearing No.Na.Ka.A1/7296/95, dated 11. 96. Vide the order bearing No.Na.Ka.A1/7296/95, dated 20.4.96, the petitioner had been reverted to the post of Surveyor, on consolidated pay, on the basis of the revised seniority list, dated 20.95. No notice was issued to the petitioner before the order of reversion had been passed. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth his case before the order, dated 20.4.96, was issued. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5100 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27663 of 2006. 3. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. However, at this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, the order, dated 1. 2007, made in W.P.Nos.17738 of 2006 etc. (batch) and an order, dated 22.01.2007, made in W.P.Nos.27767 and 27768 of 2006, wherein this Court had held as follows: "11. 4. However, at this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, the order, dated 1. 2007, made in W.P.Nos.17738 of 2006 etc. (batch) and an order, dated 22.01.2007, made in W.P.Nos.27767 and 27768 of 2006, wherein this Court had held as follows: "11. The learned Government Advocate produced before me a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.374, Revenue (L.R.3(2)) Department, dated 16. 2006 and the proceedings of the Assistant Director in Na.Ka.A1/5558/2000, dated 29. 2006. By the Government Order, all persons brought into time scale of pay of the posts of Surveyor/Draftsmen were regularized in service with effect from the respective dates of their appointments in time scale of pay. Those who had crossed the upper age limit for appointment, were also granted relaxation and their services have also been regularised with effect from the dates of their appointment in the time scale of pay. The Assistant Director of and Land Records, Pudukottai, has implemented the Government order by his proceedings, dated 29. 2006. 12. The petitioners herein, have been regularised with retrospective effect by the aforesaid Government Orders and their annual increments have also been sanctioned. The details of such regularization in respect of each of the petitioners in these writ petitions is given in the enclosed Tabular Form. 13. In view of the above, the writ petitions are closed, recording the fact that the prayers of the petitioners, have been granted under the aforesaid Government Order G.O.Ms.No.374, Revenue (L.R.3(2)) Department, dated 16. 2006 and the proceedings of the Assistant Director in Na.Ka.A1/5558/2000, dated 29. 2006. Such of those petitioners in respect of whom details are not available, may work out their remedies if their services have not been regularised so far and their grievance remain unredressed. No costs." 5. The learned counsel had prayed that this Court may be pleased to pass a similar order in the present writ petition, as the facts and circumstances are similar in nature as those found in the above mentioned cases. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had no objection for this Court passing such an order. 7. The learned counsel had prayed that this Court may be pleased to pass a similar order in the present writ petition, as the facts and circumstances are similar in nature as those found in the above mentioned cases. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had no objection for this Court passing such an order. 7. In such circumstances, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the fact that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner have been granted in G.O.Ms.374 Revenue (L.R.3(2)), Department, dated 16. 2006, and the proceedings of the Assistant Director in Na.Ka.A1/5558/2000, dated 29. 2006, the writ petition stands closed, as no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition.