Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J Heard Mr. K. Elango, learned Special Government Pleader (Writs) appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.M. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present first respondent had entered into service on 3. 1963 as Vaccinator and subsequently he acquired qualification of Sanitary Inspector Course. He was appointed as Health Inspector on 21. 1989. In the mean time, one D. Dhanasekaran who had entered into service as Vaccinator on 6. 1970, even though having already acquired qualification of Sanitary Inspector, had filed Original Application No.3763 of 1991 before the Tribunal stating that he should be deemed to be Health Inspector with effect from 10. 1970 when he had been temporarily so appointed. The Tribunal had allowed the said Original Application of D. Dhanasekaran. Thereafter, the department issued a letter dated 3. 1996 wherein after recommendation for implementation of the order of the Tribunal in respect of D. Dhanasekaran, it was stated as follows: "There may be persons who are similarly placed like Thiru. D. Dhanasekaran, I am, therefore, to request you to regularize their services also from the date of their first appointment as done in the case of Thiru. D. Dhanasekaran and in time to the fact to Government early." 3. Obviously inspired the recommendation, the present first respondent filed O.A.No.5638 of 1997 before the Tribulnal, wherein it was contended that the present first respondent was senior to D. Dhanasekaran as the present first respondent was appointed in the year 1963, whereas D. Dhanasekaran was appointed for the first time in the year 1970 and therefore, the benefit which was made available to D. Dhanasekaran should be made available to the present first respondent (Applicant before the Tribunal). The Tribunal without considering the fact that the applicant before the Tribunal had kept quiet from 110. 1970 till 21. 1989 when he was promoted as Health Inspector, for the first time, granted relief to the present contesting respondent on the basis that the similar relief had been granted to D. Dhanasekaran. The said order of the Tribunal is being questioned by the State Government. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State Government that the Applicant before the Tribunal had never complained before 1989 and he had accepted the post of Health Inspector on 21. 1989. Therefore it must be presumed that there was acquiescence and waiver. The said order of the Tribunal is being questioned by the State Government. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State Government that the Applicant before the Tribunal had never complained before 1989 and he had accepted the post of Health Inspector on 21. 1989. Therefore it must be presumed that there was acquiescence and waiver. The counsel further submitted that at any rate the present case of first respondent cannot be considered similar to D. Dhanasekaran for the reason that as on date when the panel had been prepared in respect of vaccinator, the present respondent was not eligible for promotion, inasmuch as he was not possessed of necessary Sanitary Inspector Certificate. Prima facie these contentions are acceptable and in normal course we would have accepted the same and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as such relevant aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal as such. However, we have to consider two aspects. Firstly the Tribunal has been abolished. Therefore, the question of remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration does not arise. The second aspect is that in the mean time a batch of writ petitions has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Division Bench by its judgment dated 13.07.2007 in W.P.No.29794 of 2005 and other cases has given a direction to the Government to consider the question of promotion to the persons concerned like the present first respondent, with effect from the date of acquisition of qualification required for the Health Inspector. The said judgment has been challenged by the State Government and is pending before the Supreme Court, wherein stay has been granted. 5. In such a view of the matter, we feel interest of justice would be served by observing the question of granting relief claimed by the applicant/first respondent is required to be reconsidered by the Government after disposal of the cases in the Supreme Court, obviously depending upon the result of such cases. In other words if the contention of the State Government is accepted by the Supreme Court, it would not be necessary for the State Government to give any benefit to the present respondent. In other words if the contention of the State Government is accepted by the Supreme Court, it would not be necessary for the State Government to give any benefit to the present respondent. On the other hand the decision of the High Court is upheld by the Supreme Court, the benefit would be given to the present respondent with effect from the date when he had become eligible. 6. Subject to the aforestated observations, the writ petition is disposed of. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.