Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he had joined the service of the Survey Department as a Surveyor, on a consolidated pay in the year 1983. Thereafter, he has been given the time scale of pay. The petitioner was appointed in Pudukottai District Survey Unit, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1043, dated 19. 82, which had provided for the recruitment of staff, including the Surveyors on consolidated pay, towards the implementation of the `Updating Registry Scheme. The petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange and his name was forwarded to the Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records) for being considered for the post of Surveyor. In the month of November 1982, the petitioner was selected by a Three Member Committee consisting of the District Revenue Officer, the District Backward Class Welfare Officer and the Assistant Director of Survey. Therefore, the petitioner was sent for training for a period of three months from 1. 83 to 83. Following the training, a panel of approved candidates was prepared for the post of Surveyors and Draftsmen on consolidated pay by the Assistant Director of survey, Pudukkottai, on the basis of merit in accordance with the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The said approved list and the ranking given thereon was not challenged by any person. Between 14. 83 and 14. 83 appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates and they had joined duty between 14. 83 and 20.83. G.O.Ms.No.910 was issued in the year 1983 by the Commercial Tax and Religious Endowments Department, providing for absorption of Surveyors cum Draftsmen on consolidated pay in the existing vacancies and in the vacancies that was open to arise in the future carrying time scale of pay, provided they were fully qualified to hold the posts as per the rules. Thereafter, on 19. 84, the Director of Survey and Settlements issued Rc.4K 40702/84 (Additional Director) directing the appointing authority to appoint the Surveyor cum Draftsmen in consolidated pay to vacancies available in posts carrying time scale of pay, based on seniority of the Surveyors/Draftsmen in the consolidate pay posts. The provisional seniority list of Surveyors/Draftsmen on consolidated pay in Pudukkottai District, based on the ranking in the approved panel, was published on 7. 85 and the objections were invited. The provisional seniority list of Surveyors/Draftsmen on consolidated pay in Pudukkottai District, based on the ranking in the approved panel, was published on 7. 85 and the objections were invited. Thereafter, the final seniority list was published on 86. 3. Subsequently, in the year 1988, 29 surveyors/draftsmen were absorbed against the existing vacancies in the posts carrying the time scale of pay and their services were also regularised. Nine of the persons had the benefit of further promotions. In the year 1989, some more Surveyors/Draftsmen were appointed to posts carrying the time scale of pay. Whileso, in the year 1990 some sof the Surveyors/Draftsmen had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal for preparation of the seniority list, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.806, dated 17. 88 and G.O.Ms.No.523, dated 6. 82, which provided for fixation of seniority based on age, under certain circumstances. After several rounds of litigation before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and before the Supreme Court of India, the Assistant Director of Survey, Pudukkottai, issued an order bearing No.Na.Ka.No.A1/7296/95, dated 18. 95, containing the revised seniority list of Surveyors/Draftsmen in Pudukkottai, wherein age was the sole criterion for determination of seniority. The list had been prepared without giving notice to the affected parties in the manner directed by the Tribunal in R.A.Nos.143 and 144 of 1992. It was, however, provided that the persons who were aggrieved by the seniority list could raise their objections within 30 days. Even though objections were filed the provisional seniority list, dated 18. 95, was confirmed without any change by the order of the third respondent, bearing Na.Ka.No.A1/7296/95, dated 20.12.1995. On 20.12.95, letters were sent by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Pudukkottai, to the petitioner and other Surveyors/Draftsmen, aggrieved by the seniority list, informing that their objections had been forwarded to the Director of Survey and Land Records, the second respondent herein. While so, one of the aggrieved persons, had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.253 of 1996. In spite of an interim order having been granted by the Tribunal in its order, dated 11. 96, a reversion order had been issued to the petitioner and 34 other surveyors/draftsmen, reverting them to the post carrying consolidated scales of pay and as a consequence they would suffer reduction of pay of over Rs.2000/- per month. In spite of an interim order having been granted by the Tribunal in its order, dated 11. 96, a reversion order had been issued to the petitioner and 34 other surveyors/draftsmen, reverting them to the post carrying consolidated scales of pay and as a consequence they would suffer reduction of pay of over Rs.2000/- per month. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3258 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28291 of 2006. 4. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. 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 21. 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 regularized 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 regularized 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. 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 regularized so far and their grievance remain unredressed. No costs." 6. 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. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had no objection for this Court passing such an order. 8. 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.