Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the petitioners and Mr. S. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and have perused the records. 2. All these writ petitions are filed by the State represented by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department against the common order dated 210. 2002 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 128 to 132 of 1997 and O.A. Nos. 5271 to 5273 of 2002 respectively. The contesting respondents in all these writ petitions instituted the Original Applications seeking for direction to the writ petitioner to pay salary to the first respondent in all these petitions for the period from February 1996 to July 1997 during the period in which they had worked in the Non-Formal and Adult Education Department. .3. The first respondent State by G.O. (Rt) No. 1410 Education Department dated 09. 1988 created 21 posts of Technical Assistants to work in the project work of Rural Functional Literacy Project in Tamil Nadu which had cent percent financial assistance from the Government of India. Subsequently, under the orders of the Government of India, State Adult Education Project as well as Rural Functional Literacy Project were disbanded by G.O. (Rt) No. 1 Education Department dated 04.01.1993. As the projects were closed by the orders of the Government of India, all the Project staff excepting 8 Technical Assistants, who were working in various schemes, was redeployed. But the first respondent in all the writ petitions, who were working as Technical Assistants did not have any teaching experience and could not be accommodated in any school for teaching work. They were ousted from service from 01.02.1996 in view of the disbandment of the project. During this period, the Director of Non-formal and Adult Education Department recommended that these Technical Assistants may be appointed as Junior Assistants keeping in view their service in RFLP for a long period and they can be accommodated in the School Education Department. The petitioner State accepted the recommendation and appointed these contesting respondents as Junior Assistants in the School Education Department after granting necessary relaxation in terms of their age and communal roster with further assurance that after getting the concurrence from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, their services will be regularized. Accordingly, the contesting respondents joined the School Education Department and subsequently, got their services regularized. Accordingly, the contesting respondents joined the School Education Department and subsequently, got their services regularized. .4. The grievance of the contesting respondents was that even under G.O. Ms. No. 1 Education Department dated 04.01.1993 by which the RFLP was wound up, they were directed to be absorbed in other Government Departments and also job protection was given to these persons. Even by letter dated 14.02.1996, then Additional Secretary to Government authorized the District Adult Education officer to draw and disburse the salary to 8 Technical Assistants. Therefore, when they were not paid salary to the period in which they were absorbed, they filed the above O. As. claiming salary for the period from February 1996 to July 1997. The Tribunal held that though the contesting respondents have worked during the said period, the District Adult Education Officers were not able to draw salary for the period from February 1996 to July 1997 in spite of rendering work and this was only because of the administrative delay in sanctioning the amount. Even in the interim direction dated 011. 1998, the writ petitioner was directed to consider the claim of the applicants and when that was not forthcoming, a Contempt Application came to be filed. The Tribunal held that in view of job guarantee given by the State, they were entitled to be continued in the service until proper absorption into various Government Departments were made and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal, by the common order dated 210. 2002, allowed the Original Applications and .directed the payment of salary to be paid to the applicants / first respondent in all these petitions from February 1996 to July 1997. It is against this common order, the present writ petitions have been filed as noted already. 5. The only ground taken by the petitioner State is the administrative delay in their absorption and in getting the exemption from the Government. Even though the common order of the Tribunal was dated 210. 2002 there was a delay of more than 1 year and 2 months in moving the writ petitions, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Merely because there was administrative delay, that by itself will not entitle the petitioner granting appointment to the contesting respondents especially when there has been a job guarantee to these persons by G.O. Ms. No. 1 Education Department dated 04.01.1993. Merely because there was administrative delay, that by itself will not entitle the petitioner granting appointment to the contesting respondents especially when there has been a job guarantee to these persons by G.O. Ms. No. 1 Education Department dated 04.01.1993. When the petitioners had given employment to 13 persons out of 21 by employing them as Secondary Grade Teachers and Drivers, etc., there is no reason why the appointment to these respondents alone should be delayed thereby making them virtually starve without any remuneration. It is too late for the petitioners to come and argue that after 14.02.1996, they were not in service and, therefore, they are not entitled to be paid salary. We find that the Tribunal has done substantial justice to the contesting first respondent in all these petitions and has clearly given direction to the writ petitioner State to carry out their own scheme for job security and such a guarantee cannot be denied by pleading mere administrative delay in implementing the orders of the Government. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. In view of the above, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The petitioner is directed to implement the orders of the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.