Judgment :- Heard Mr. T. Ramkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Seenivasan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, as well as Mr.S.Sathiyamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined the service of the second respondent Corporation, on 28. 1981, at the TANSI Foundry and Heavy Machine Shop, Erode, as a Chemist. When he was employed at Erode, his duties and responsibilities included the laboratory and cupola operations and he was also entrusted with the additional responsibilities of watching over the stock position of the materials required for the foundry section and to prepare purchase requisitions for submission to the General Superintendent and also to take follow up action to ensure that three months stock of materials are always kept for the foundry. 3. The petitioner has further stated that he had been transferred to Mettur Dam, along with the post, on 24. 2000, by an order in Ref.No.5905/FD1/2000, dated 24. 2000. At Mettur, the petitioner was allotted to the TANSI Structural and Galvanizing Works, pursuant to the request of the Works Manager of the said factory as there was no Chemist in the said factory. The duties and responsibilities that were given to him, as a chemist, included the despatching of the galvanized tower parts to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam, to maintain the stock registered for such despatch, verification of the concentration of Hydrochloric acid, as and when the acid lots are received and the work of carrying out the necessary chemical tests. The petitioner was also asked to attend and to carry out the tests before the despatch of materials to the Electricity Board and also to attend to the pollution equipment maintenance. However, based on the report of Raghavan Committee appointed to study the viability of State Public Sector Enterprises, the Committee of Secretaries made certain recommendations. One of the recommendations was with regard to the closing down of the unviable units stating that the staff and the workers of such units should be redeployed, either in TANSI or in other public sector units/departments. Based on the report of the committee of the Secretaries, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.53, Small Industries (SIE) Department, dated 210. 2000. One of the recommendations was with regard to the closing down of the unviable units stating that the staff and the workers of such units should be redeployed, either in TANSI or in other public sector units/departments. Based on the report of the committee of the Secretaries, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.53, Small Industries (SIE) Department, dated 210. 2000. By the said Government order it was decided to accept the report of the said Committee and it was decided to close seven units. However, the said Government Order was silent with regard to the redeployment of the existing staff and the workers of the closed units. The Government Order, dated 210. 2000, had stated that 72 workers and 102 staff and officers may be relieved under the existing voluntary retirement scheme and those who did not opt for the voluntary retirement scheme were liable to be retrenched. 4. Based on the said Government order, the petitioner was being compelled to opt for the voluntary retirement scheme under the threat of retrenchment. Following the said Government order, the second respondent Corporation had issued the impugned order, dated 1. 2001, retrenching the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the relief’s as stated therein. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the second respondent Corporation is a Government undertaking, fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The second respondent Corporation had come into existence in the year 1965, with 65 units spread over the State of Tamil Nadu. However, at present the second respondent Corporation is left with only 29 units, excluding six sales centres which are in operation. 36 units had already been closed. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by an order in G.O.Ms.No.26, Finance (BPE) Department, dated 21. 1997, had set up the Raghavan Committee to undertake the comprehensive review of the performance of the public sector undertakings and to identify the causes for their inadequate performance and for recommending suitable measures for their improved performance. After an in-depth study, it had recommended that TANSI and its subsidiaries may be wound up and their assets be sold at the market value. After an in-depth study, it had recommended that TANSI and its subsidiaries may be wound up and their assets be sold at the market value. Based on the amounts realised on the sale of the assets the employees were to be compensated for their past services and the balance amounts were to be paid to the Government towards their loans. 6. It has been further stated that the Experts Committee and the secretaries committee had also recommended that the loss making and unviable units may be gradually closed. Based on the recommendations, the Government of Tamil Nadu had decided to close seven unviable units, including the TANSI Foundry and Heavy Machine Shop, at Erode. The Government of Tamil Nadu had accepted the proposal and had issued G.O.Ms.No.53, Small Industries (SIE) Department, dated 210. 2000, stating that the workers and staff, who were not willing to be relieved under the voluntary retirement scheme, may be retrenched after giving due notice and after following the procedures laid down by law. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has stated that the petitioner had come before this Court by filing the present writ petition and had obtained an order of interim stay of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 1. 2001, by an order, dated 14. 2001 made in W.M.P.No.1266 of 2001. The order of interim stay was made absolute by an order of this Court, dated 18. 2003. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been continuing in service till date. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had further stated that the petitioner has been accommodated as a Chemist at the Ambattur union of the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had also submitted that the petitioner would not be terminated from service. However, he had stated that the continuance of the petitioner in service may not be treated as a precedent by other similarly placed persons. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.