Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. The facts which are required to be noticed in some detail are as follows:- The first respondent was employed as Driver in the Central Polytechnic, Madras, where from he was transferred to the Government Polytechnic for Women, Madurai. There was some incident involving the first respondent and a co-employee and a criminal case was filed under section 324 IPC. in C.C.No.158 of 1981 in the file of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Madurai. The first respondent was placed under suspension on account of his involvement in the said criminal case. However, such criminal case was withdrawn thereafter. The first respondent made a representation for revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service. At that stage, on 8. 1985, the respondent No.1 received a communication stating that he had been dismissed from service by proceedings of the Principal dated 10. 1982. The first respondent filed a representation, which was treated as an appeal, but such appeal was also rejected and the subsequent appeal to the Government was also rejected. At that stage, the first respondent filed O.A.No.1004 of 1991. The stand projected by the employee before the Tribunal was to the effect that the charge memo was issued to the last known address of the respondent No.1, but, since the respondent No.1 was not available, it was pasted on the door. 3. The Tribunal found that the notice had not been served and therefore, the order of termination without any enquiry was invalid. The Tribunal, therefore, by order dated 210. 2002, held that the respondent No.1 (applicant before the Tribunal) was deemed to be in service till the age of his superannuation and on that basis, directed that all his service benefits should be paid. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 made a representation to the appropriate authorities, which was of no use. 4. On the other hand, an application was filed by the Principal in M.A.No.20014 of 2003 in O.A.No.1004 of 1991 for extension of time to comply with the order. Since the order was not complied with, contempt proceeding was initiated and notice was issued on 28. 2003. At that stage, another application in M.A.No.2755 of 2003 was filed by the department authorities for extension of time from 210. Since the order was not complied with, contempt proceeding was initiated and notice was issued on 28. 2003. At that stage, another application in M.A.No.2755 of 2003 was filed by the department authorities for extension of time from 210. 2003 to 20.4.2004 to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. Even thereafter, application in M.A.No.4116 of 2004 was filed for further extension of time. At that stage, the respondent No.1 filed contempt application No.50 of 2004 before the State Administrative Tribunal, in which notice was issued, but still the order was not complied with. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 was forced to file W.P.No.21892 of 2004 seeking for a direction to implement the order dated 210. 2002. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, directed that such order must be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if there was no other legal impediment. Subsequently, on 112. 2004, by proceedings, the order had been partially complied with. In March, 2005, the respondent No.1 again filed contempt application No.209 of 2005, wherein notice was issued. After all these, the present petitioners woke up from slumber by filing the present W.P.No.11107 of 2005 challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 210. 2002 after lapse of about 2½ years. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even assuming that the termination order had been passed without holding an enquiry, the Tribunal instead of directing for the deemed reinstatement with all consequential financial benefits, should have directed the department to continue with the enquiry after giving an opportunity to the respondent No.1. In addition, it is submitted that at any rate there is no justification for the Tribunal in directing deemed reinstatement with all attendant financial benefits including backwages, more particularly, when the present respondent No.1 did not work in the organization. 6. Even though these submissions prima facie appear to be attractive, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are unable to come to the assistance of the present petitioners. After the order was passed by the Tribunal, the present petitioners filed several applications before the Tribunal seeking for extension of time to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. After the order was passed by the Tribunal, the present petitioners filed several applications before the Tribunal seeking for extension of time to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. The above conduct is clearly indicative of the fact that the present petitioners had acquiesced in the order passed by the Tribunal and the petitioners had not contemplated to challenge such order. Therefore, the rule of acquiescence is definitely applicable, so far as the present writ petition is concerned. 7. The other embargo is that a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties to implement the order within a specified period. Such order of the learned Single Judge has remained unchallenged. While considering the matter in a collateral proceedings, and not against the decision of the learned single Judge, we cannot go beyond such order since the learned Single Judge has given specific direction to implement the order in an independent proceedings wherein the original order of the Tribunal was sought to be implemented. 8. Moreover, from the materials on record, we find that the Government of Tamil Nadu by letter dated 211. 2004 clearly indicated that they had no intention to file any writ petition and the Government had decided to implement the order. 9. Keeping in view all such subsequent developments, we hardly have any scope to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.