Judgment :- By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, who made submissions on getting instructions. 3. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 27. 2007 in so far as it grants permission to the second respondent to pay salary to the petitioner by treating him as Junior Assistant from the date of the said order viz., 27. 2007 instead of the date of original appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant on 19. 1991, the date on which he ought to have been appointed in the higher post of Junior Assistant/Typist since he was qualified as per G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 8. 1989. 4. According to the petitioner, his father Srinivasan who was working as Nursing Assistant in Tiruvarur Municipality died on 3. 1991 while he was in service. At that time, the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Junior Assistant as he had completed his Plus Two in the year 1990 and he made application to the second respondent Municipality on1. 1991 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Considering the application of the petitioner, the second respondent appointed the petitioner as Office Assistant on 19. 1991 in which post the petitioner joined on 29. 1991. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 1989 which was in existence at that time, the petitioner being the dependent, was entitled to appointment on compassionate ground to the higher post of Junior Assistant since at that time, he possessed the qualifications required for Junior Assistant and the appointment of the petitioner in 1991 as Office Assistant is against the said G.O. The petitioner has made representation to the respondents on 11. 1991 onwards but, the respondents have not passed orders in respect of his claim of appointment as Junior Assistant and the petitioner ultimately approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.8026 of 2000 which was subsequently transferred to this Court as W.P.No.41640 of 2005. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, by order dated 4. 2007, has considered the implication of G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 1989 and also the subsequent recommendations of the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Thanjavur dated 16. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, by order dated 4. 2007, has considered the implication of G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 1989 and also the subsequent recommendations of the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Thanjavur dated 16. 1997 recommending to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai that the petitioner should be appointed to the higher post of Junior Assistant, and taking into consideration that the petitioner was eligible for the appointment as Junior Assistant even at the time when he was originally appointed as Office Assistant, has passed the following order: "In view of the said recommendations and having regard to the eligibility of the petitioner in accordance with the said Government Order, the first respondent is directed to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 11. 2000 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order". 5. It was, thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent on 27. 2007. In the impugned order the first respondent, while accepting the case of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 1989, has however granted permission to the second respondent to pay salary to the petitioner as Junior Assistant from the date of impugned order viz., 27. 2007, instead of granting the said benefit from the date of his original appointment viz., 19. 1991. It is, that portion of the impugned order, which is under challenge. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Lita Srinivasan that the petitioner himself has chosen to approach the Tribunal only in the year 2000 even though his original appointment as Office Assistant was 19. 1991 and therefore, he will not be entitled to the benefit of appointment as Junior Assistant from the date of original appointment viz., 19. 1991 and according to her, the impugned order which is challenged is not unsustainable. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Perumal,V. vs. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Dept., Chennai [ (2006) 2 MLJ 339 ] as well as the Division Bench judgment in Indian Council of Medical Research v. K.Rajalakshmi ( 2005(1) CTC 488 ). 8. A reference to G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 8. A reference to G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 1989 makes it clear that it is the duty of the appointing authority at the time of appointment of dependent not to appoint such dependent in a lower post when he possessed qualifications required for the appointment to a higher post, in the present case, Junior Assistant/Typist, merely on the ground of non-availability of vacancy in the Office. The operative portion of the G.O. is as follows: "The appointing authorities under no circumstances should appoint a dependent to a lower post when the dependent possess the qualifications required for the post of Junior Assistant/Typist on the ground of non availability of vacancy in the office or department or the dependents not willing to work in other Departments. In such circumstances they should follow the existing procedure of approaching the Collector of District for providing a suitable vacancy as suggested in the G.O.Ms.No.1179 R AR dt.110. 79." 9. By virtue of the mandatory stipulation in the said Government Order, it is clear that a duty was cast on the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on the date of his appointment viz., 19. 1991 and in spite of the same, while the petitioner was qualified to be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant/Typist, he was appointed to the lower post, which is totally against the tenor of the Government Order and the fact that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal only in the year 2000 has no meaning when the right conferred under the Government Order accrued from the date of appointment and merely because the petitioner has not raised his grievance within the particular time, the same does not mean that he has given up his right. 10. On the other hand, as rightly submitted by Mr. K. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, even on 11. 1995 the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent, and in fact, the second respondent in the communication to the first respondent dated 211. 1995 has referred to the claim made by the petitioner on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 1989. The other subsequent communications of the years 1996 and 1997 from the respondents themselves show that the petitioners representation for appointment as Junior Assistant was pending with respondents. 1995 has referred to the claim made by the petitioner on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department dated 8. 1989. The other subsequent communications of the years 1996 and 1997 from the respondents themselves show that the petitioners representation for appointment as Junior Assistant was pending with respondents. Therefore, it cannot be now contended by the respondents as if the petitioner has raised his plea for the first time in the year 2000. 11. In Perumal,V. vs. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Dept., Chennai [ (2006) 2 MLJ 339 ], while referring to a similar Government Order relating to the granting of relaxation for the purpose of regularisation of service of the petitioner therein, this Court has held that the regularisation cannot be made after 20 years of the petitioners service merely because the authority has chosen to pass orders after 20 years. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows: "4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no justification to restrict the relaxation applicable prospectively and not from the date of petitioners passing the Nursing Assistant test from 30.8.1975. The Government have relaxed the qualification in favour of the petitioner and having regard to the appointment of the petitioner as Hospital Servant on regular basis with effect from 13. 1965 and having appointed the petitioner as Nursing Assistant Grade II temporarily and the petitioner having completed training on 30.8.1975, there is no justification on the part of the Government to restrict the relaxation only from the date of the order. The relaxation is granted by the Government for the purpose of regularisation of petitioners service. The regularisation of service cannot be made after 20 years of the petitioners service. If the impugned Government Order is applied strictly, the petitioners valuable service of 20 years will get obliterated and the petitioner will not be in a position to get annual increments and other benefits. Hence, the action of the first respondent in restricting the relaxation only from 26. 1995 is unreasonable and arbitrary in exercise of power." 12. If the impugned Government Order is applied strictly, the petitioners valuable service of 20 years will get obliterated and the petitioner will not be in a position to get annual increments and other benefits. Hence, the action of the first respondent in restricting the relaxation only from 26. 1995 is unreasonable and arbitrary in exercise of power." 12. The Division Bench presided over by P. Sathasivam,J. (as He then was) in Indian Council of Medical Research v. K. Rajalakshmi ( 2005(1) CTC 488 ), while differing from the view of the Tribunal that such benefit should be given from the date of filing of the writ petition, has also held that the first respondent therein would be entitled for the benefit from the date of her original appointment. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: "31. In the light of the above, we are of the view that when the first respondent puts in more than 25 years of service continuously in NNMB without any break and her appointment is regular and considering her qualification and experience she was promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officer and when especially she is on the verge of retirement, her services have to be regularized with all monetary and service benefits and therefore, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the services of the first respondent have to be regularized. However, we differ from the view of the Tribunal that the services of the first respondent have to be regularized from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., 22. 1998 for the following reasons. 32. As already stated above, it is not disputed that the first respondent was appointed on 4. 1975 and her appointment was regular and thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant Research Officer along with four others on 29. 1982. Since the services of the first respondent was not regularized, she gave representations even in the year 1987 to regularize her services." 13. In view of the above said legal position as well as the admitted factual matrix in this case, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the first respondent insofar as it confers the benefit of payment of salary to the petitioner as Junior Assistant from the date of order viz., 27. In view of the above said legal position as well as the admitted factual matrix in this case, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the first respondent insofar as it confers the benefit of payment of salary to the petitioner as Junior Assistant from the date of order viz., 27. 2007 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside with direction to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant from the date of his joining, 29. 1991 as per the order of original appointment viz., 19. 1991 and compute all monetary benefits including service benefits due to the petitioner and confer the said benefits on the petitioner expeditiously, in any event within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is ordered. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.