Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1514/As tho 2/2005, dated 17.03.2006 and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the 1st and 2nd Respondents not to alter the seniority list published by the 2nd Respondent in Na.KA.2795/93/ka.ka dated 12.01.1996 and give promotion to Respondents 3 to 21. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows: (i) Petitioner is a registered Trade Union bearing Regn.No.1054 VLR. The members of the Petitioner union are employed on NMR basis by the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent Vellore Co-operative Mills was established in the year 1974, is under the deep and pervasive control of the State Government and at present managed by the special officer appointed by the Government. The 2nd Respondent recruited the members of the Petitioner union during 1978 and 1982. The 2nd Respondent employed number of workmen belonging to the Petitioner union for several years. Initially they were paid Rs.5 per day and granted work about 300 days in a year. (ii) During 1994, the 2nd Respondent mill had upgraded more than 25 persons, including Respondents No.3 to 21 as mazdoors from the cadre of NMRs. Respondents 3 to 21 were upgraded to mazdoors based on their educational qualifications. (iii) In the year, 1995 the 2nd Respondent Management came to know that Respondents 3 to 21 availed the promotion by producing forged certificates in respect of their educational qualification and age. (iv) A Fresh seniority list of the NMRs was prepared by the 2nd Respondent and published in Na.Ka.2795/93/ka.ka dat 12.01.1996. The Respondents 3 to 21 were placed in Serial No.102 to 127 in the list. After due enquiry the Respondents 3 to 21 were reduced from the rank of Mazdoor to NMRs and were place junior most among the NMRs below the names of other NMRs. After a period of 10 years, respondents 3 to 21 have sent a petition dated 18.01.2005 to the 1st Respondent to restore their seniority. After calling for remarks from the 2nd Respondent the 1st Respondent allowed the petition. The 1st Respondent by the impugned order dated 17.03.2006, accepted the request of the Respondents 3 to 21 and to the 2nd Respondent to restore their position to their original seniority. After calling for remarks from the 2nd Respondent the 1st Respondent allowed the petition. The 1st Respondent by the impugned order dated 17.03.2006, accepted the request of the Respondents 3 to 21 and to the 2nd Respondent to restore their position to their original seniority. The impugned order is challenged in the writ petition as violative of the rights of the Petitioner Union. 2. 2nd Respondent filed counter stating that Respondents 3 to 21 having suffered the demotion in service as a punishment towards the omissions committed. Further punishment by being given placement as junior most NMRs seniority list would amount double punishment. According to Respondents reappreciating the mistake committed by the Administration, 1st Respondent passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2006, restoring the original seniority. 3. Challenging the impugned order Mr.Yashod Vardhan, the learned Senior counsel contended that seniority list of 1996 cannot be reopened after a lapse of about 10 years. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that production of bogus educational certificates is a serious mistake and the punishment of reduction in rank and also placing Respondents 3 to 21 as junior most in the NMRs was reasonable punishment and the same ought not to have been modified after a period of 10 years. 4. On behalf of 1st Respondent heard Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent Ms.G.Thilakavathi, has contended that apart from demotion, award of another punishment of reduction in seniority would amount to double punishment and therefore the impugned order was rightly passed by the 1st Respondent restoring their original seniority. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondents 3 to 21 Mr.R.Gopinath, submitted that apart from punishment of demotion and also reduction of seniority would be a multiple punishment causing serious prejudice to the Respondents 3 to 21 and the 1st Respondent being Appellate Authority rightly modified the same and the same need not be interfered with. 7. In the 2nd Respondent Sugar Mill there are two categories of casual workers Mazdoor and NMRs. Mazdoor will be benefited by getting more working days than NMRs. Only Mazdoors are considered for promotion and regularisation. The Respondents 3 to 21 who are working as daily wages in the Respondent Sugar Mill and in terms of the provision of the by-laws were eligible to be promoted to the post of Mazdoors (seasonal)/or upgraded as Mazdoors as per the provisions of the by-laws. Only Mazdoors are considered for promotion and regularisation. The Respondents 3 to 21 who are working as daily wages in the Respondent Sugar Mill and in terms of the provision of the by-laws were eligible to be promoted to the post of Mazdoors (seasonal)/or upgraded as Mazdoors as per the provisions of the by-laws. The Respondents 3 to 21 were considered for postings as Mazdoor (seasonal) and the Management granted promotions to such of those wagers who satisfied the prescribed educational qualification. When the vacancies arose in the year of 1994, 37 NMRs were selected and appointed as seasonal Mazdoor in the unskilled category, on the basis of experience, performance and seniority among the NMRs who were recruited through District Employment Exchange in the year 1997. The educational certificates produced by the Mazdoors were sent to the Educational authorities for verifying the genuiness of the same, before regularising their services. 8. The report from Educational Authorities that 21 certificates were false out of 27 certificates sent. The enquiry was conducted and charges of misconduct levelled against Respondents 3 to 21 held to be proved. Based on the reports of the enquiry report those who had produced false certificates, were demoted from the post of Mazdoors to the NMRs and also placed under the last seniority in the list of NMRs. 9. Pursuant to the punishment of demotion and placing under the list of seniority in the list of NMRs a seniority list was prepared in 1996. As per the said seniority list Respondents 3 to 21 were placed below the junior most incumbent i.e., assigning Sl.Nos. 130-150. 10. Appellate Authority passed the order restoring the seniority on the following grounds:- "The similarly placed persons are given original seniority and there cannot be inconsistency in punishment in respect of the same misconduct. " Demotion itself was punishment; again placing them lower in the seniority in the list of NMRs will amount to double punishment. 11. Challenging the impugned order the learned Senior counsel mainly contended that it is not open to the Department to alter the seniority list after a lapse of 10 years. The learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon 2007 (1) CTC 296 , S.Subramanian vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai Region, Madurai Road, Sivagangai. In the said case seniority was fixed pursuant to the settlement which have become final. The learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon 2007 (1) CTC 296 , S.Subramanian vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai Region, Madurai Road, Sivagangai. In the said case seniority was fixed pursuant to the settlement which have become final. In such facts and circumstances of the case Division Bench has held that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after lapse of long period. 12. The ratio of said decision cannot be applied to the case on hand. In view of modification of the punishment imposed upon the Respondents 3 to 21. Objection raised by the Petitioners is that the impugned order proposed to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority accrued to the members of Petitioners Union. 13. According to the Petitioners, any request for reconsideration of punishment should have been rejected. By and large one of the essential requirement of public servants is a feeling of security. Of course taking of old matter like seniority list after long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. But the present case stands on a different footing. The Respondents 3 and 4 are already seniors to the members of writ petitioner union. As a measure of punishment Respondents 3 to 21 have been demoted. For the alleged misconduct committed by them having suffered punishment of demotion, it was thought fit to restore their original seniority. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that re-appreciating the mistake committed by the Administration, 1st Respondent has passed the order restoring the original seniority of Respondents 3 to 21. Therefore it cannot be contended that it was not open to the Authorities to upset the seniority list after 10 years. 14. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners further contended that production of bogus certificate would be a serious misconduct and they have been rightly imposed punishment of demotion and placed them lower in the seniority list of NMRs and that the punishment cannot be modified after a period of 10 years. 15. As pointed out by the 1st Respondent in the impugned order, yet another person found to be have given bogus certificate was imposed punishment of demotion imposed on him. But the said delinquent was not placed lower in the seniority list of NMRs. Noticing the inconsistency in the quantum of punishment, to ensure consistency in the quantum of the punishment, the Appellate Authority restored the original seniority. 16. But the said delinquent was not placed lower in the seniority list of NMRs. Noticing the inconsistency in the quantum of punishment, to ensure consistency in the quantum of the punishment, the Appellate Authority restored the original seniority. 16. On behalf of the Petitioners the learned Senior counsel contended that even assuming that for another delinquent original seniority was restored which could be only a illegality and the same illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. It was further argued that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept and that it cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality. This contention does not merit acceptance. Observing that awarding punishment of demotion and also placing them lower in the seniority list of NMRs would amount to multiple punishment, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order restoring the original seniority and also to ensure consistency in the quantum of punishment. It cannot be therefore contended that the order tends to perpetuate illegality. 17. Observation of the Appellate Authority that imposing punishment of demotion and also placing the Petitioners lower in the seniority list would amount to double punishment is amply evident from the seniority list. By placing them lower in the seniority list of NMRs, Respondents 3 to 21 who were above in the rank of NMRs have been brought to the lower level of Sl.No.130 to 150. THE VELLORE CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD., Sl.No Name of the Employees Seniority as on 1994 Seniority as on 1996 K.Kandaswamy-R3 3 130 2 K.Arumugam-R4 4 131 3 D.Balaraman-R5 5 132 4 P.Rajendran-R6 6 134 5 E.Wilson-R7 7 135 6 G.Selvaraj-R8 8 136 7 R.Rajagopal-R9 9 137 8 E.Sivalingam-R10 10 138 9 M.Ramachandiran-R11 11 139 10 K.Govindaraj-R12 12 140 11 K.Irusappan-R13 13 141 12 V.Gajendran-R14 14 142 13 K.Gopal-R15 15 143 14 M.Dayalan-R16 16 145 15 P.Jayapal-R17 17 146 16 S.G.Rajendiran-R18 18 147 17 A.N.Sekaran-R19 19 148 18 K.Sarangan-R20 20 149 19 K.N.Velayutham-R21 21 150 From the above chart, it is clear that on account of placing them lower in the list of NMRs, respondents 3 to 21 had greatly suffered the improper fitment given to them in the seniority list. Noticing the improper fitment given to the Respondents 3 to 21 has passed the order in 1514/Sa tho 2 /2005 dated 17.03.2006, restoring their original seniority. Noticing the improper fitment given to the Respondents 3 to 21 has passed the order in 1514/Sa tho 2 /2005 dated 17.03.2006, restoring their original seniority. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has submitted that in as much as substantial right of the employees involved the order of Appellate Authority has to be 3 to 21 is likely to cause disturbance in functioning of the mill which would have its repercussions towards administration of the Sugar mill during season. The impugned implemented. It was further argued that any interference of seniority list of Respondents order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. 18. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order already granted by this Court on 04.04.2006 is vacated. W.V.M.P. Nos.2019 & 2071/2006 are allowed. W.P.M.P. No.9589/2006 is dismissed. No costs.