Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. T. Sellapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 and have perused the records. 2. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Tramil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, Tribunal] dated 212. 2003 in declining to grant re-employment benefits to the petitioner from 010. 2003 to 35. 2004. 3. The petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Government Arts College, Dharmapuri and he had reached the age of superannuation on 30.9.2003. Since the Government had ordered that the services of teachers who retired during the middle of the academic year will be continued till the end of the academic year, proposals were sent by the Principal of the Government Arts College recommending the case of the petitioner for permitting to re-employ him from 010. 2003 to 35. 2004. .4. Since no order was passed, the petitioner moved the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3296 of 2003 and sought for his continuance on re-employment terms. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., by an order dated 011. 2003 and stated that the refusal to re-employ the petitioner can only be on three grounds, viz., that the person seeking re-employment should have good physical health, his conduct and character should be satisfactory and that his pension papers should not have been submitted to the Accountant General six months in advance to the date of retirement. 5. As liberty was granted to the respondents to pass orders in terms of the proposal sent on behalf of the petitioner, the second respondent, by an order dated 111. 2003, rejected the request made on behalf of the petitioner informing that since he had participated in the illegal strike called by JACTEO-JEO and as he had violated Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, was dismissed from service and, therefore, ineligible to get the re-employment. It was only pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, he was reinstated in service on certain conditions, and, therefore, the respondent stated that the question of permitting his continuance after the age of superannuation on re-employment basis, was not feasible. In that view of the matter, he was relieved from his service on 30.9.2003. It was only pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, he was reinstated in service on certain conditions, and, therefore, the respondent stated that the question of permitting his continuance after the age of superannuation on re-employment basis, was not feasible. In that view of the matter, he was relieved from his service on 30.9.2003. The petitioner once again had approached the Tribunal with O.A. No. 3877 of 2003 challenging the said order. 6. A reply statement dated Nil December 2003 was filed and it was stated that the petitioner had violated the Conduct Rules and he also defied the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 [for short, TESMA]. The Tribunal agreed with the contention made in the reply statement and stated that the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and dismissed the O.A. The petitioner, thereafter, moved this Court with the present writ petition. 7. Though the writ petition was admitted, the interim relief prayed for by him was refused vide order dated 23. 2005. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the reason given by the second respondent in the impugned order is justified and whether the Tribunal was wrong in not interfering with the said order. .8. When the service of 2,00,000 employees were dispensed with, without any enquiry, on the ground that the Government employees including the petitioner had gone on a strike and when challenge was made against the said action, this Court did not interfere on the ground that there was an availability of alternative remedy. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the issue was dealt with on merits. By various interim orders, the Supreme Court directed the State Government to reinstate the substantial number of Government employees. The final judgment of the Supreme Court was reported in 2003 (6) SCC 581 [T.K. Rangarajan and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others]. 9. Though the Supreme Court took exception to the Government servants going on strike in violation of the Conduct Rules, it was finally decided that the Government servants will be reinstated and the following undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel for the Tamil Nadu State was recorded by the Supreme Court in its order dated 08. 2003 (cited supra). 9. Though the Supreme Court took exception to the Government servants going on strike in violation of the Conduct Rules, it was finally decided that the Government servants will be reinstated and the following undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel for the Tamil Nadu State was recorded by the Supreme Court in its order dated 08. 2003 (cited supra). "From 25th July such employees would be reinstated in service subject to their giving an unconditional apology for resorting to strike and also an undertaking to the effect that in future they would abide by Rule 22. He also states that for the employees who would be reinstated in service with regard to the period for which they remained absent, appropriate order would be passed by the State Government for regularizing their absence. However, this would not be treated as a break in service." Thus, the petitioner was restored to service. Whether his conduct can be said to be bad so as to disentitle him from getting any benefits given to teachers is the question to be decided in this writ petition. 10. Subsequent to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the State Government not only withdrew the TESMA but also regularised the period of strike indulged by the Government servants and also paid full wages for the said period. The endorsements made in the Annual Confidential Reports were also directed to be deleted with reference to the said issue. An incident of going on a days strike and the subsequent conduct of regretting for the same cannot vitiate the long services put in by a Government servant. Such an action on the part of the Government servant cannot be said to be a bad conduct or a bad character so as to deprive the legitimate benefits conferred on them by virtue of the service rendered by a Government servant. 11. In the present case, the Government Order granting re-employment was done so as to help the students to have an academic continuity and that their education will not be disrupted. In extending the said benefit, the respondents denying the benefit to the petitioner on extraneous ground is totally unwarranted. It must be noted that the Government also withdrew all the disciplinary action taken against the Government servants vide G.O.Ms. No. 125 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 15. 2004. 12. In extending the said benefit, the respondents denying the benefit to the petitioner on extraneous ground is totally unwarranted. It must be noted that the Government also withdrew all the disciplinary action taken against the Government servants vide G.O.Ms. No. 125 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 15. 2004. 12. In the light of the same, the writ petition will stand allowed and the the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3877 of 2003 dated 212. 2003 will stand set aside. Consequently, the order of the second respondent dated 111. 2003 will also stand set aside. Since the petitioner had already retired from service, the respondents are hereby directed to pay entire wages to the petitioner from 010. 2003 to 35. 004 on reemployment basis. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs.