Judgment :- The petitioner was a retired teacher and was drawing pension from the Government. When the respondent wanted to start Tamil Etymology Dictionary Project, the petitioners services were required and he was given the posting appointing on a consolidated pay of Rs.7,000/- as a Editor of the project for the year 1996-1997. The project funds were given by the State Government under the Tamil Development Culture Department vide G.O.Ms.No.195 dated 02.09.1996. The order of appointment, as produced by the petitioner, given under G.O.Ms.No.195 dated 02.09.1996 stating that the appointments were made on a temporary basis and they can continue in service for one year or until the completion of the project, whichever is earlier. Subsequently, the petitioner had continued in service for more than one year and however by an order dated 13.08.1998 the petitioner was relieved from his duty and he was directed to hand over the charges. The petitioner challenges the relieving order by filing O.A.No.6777 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 2. The contention of the petitioner was that even after the expiry of one year on 31.08.1997, the petitioners services were continued. However, by the impunged order the petitioners services were dispensed with without any reason and therefore the petitioner wanted the impugned order to be set aside and also for restoration. The petitioner claimed that he was a qualified Academician holding Doctors degree and versatile scholar in Tamil. He had published more than two hundred books to his credit, acclaimed as the greatest living Lexicographer in the International Lexicography Conference held at Exeter University in England and U.K. 3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit dated 10.02.1999. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that there is no question of term of appointment being given to the petitioner for one year or only the completion of project, on the contrary, the term of appointment is for one year or if the project is completed before the said one year, whichever is earlier. It is also stated that he was appointed with the hope that his services will be immensely useful to the project, but that was not done. It is also stated that he was appointed with the hope that his services will be immensely useful to the project, but that was not done. Apart from that, the respondent has volunteered the petitioner for promoting a monthly magazine by name Valarum Tamil Ulagam of which he was a Publisher and Editor and he was never informed the Government about such publication of magazine. In any event, the petitioner wrote against the President of India in his journal and he also criticised the Former President of India on the ground that instead of being neutral person he was found in other political parties stages and he should be remained neutral. Apart from the Article in his magazine, he also stated there were so many persons who were carrying on tales to the Government and he was getting Rs.3,000/-salary in the project. 4. Whatever may be the publication it was brought to the notice of the Government and the Government has decided not to continue the services of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit dated 010. 2009. Apart from reiterating his earlier contentions, he had stated that he was not paid the salary for thirteen days for which he had worked. 6. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.33770 of 2006. The contention raised by the petitioner proceeds on the basis as if that he was holding a career appointment, on the contrary, the present posting was given on a re-employment basis and the tenure itself has been prescribed in the term of appointment. Merely because he had continued beyond the tenure, it will not rise the posting as a continuous employment. 7. Even though the Government had come up with some reasons for dispensing with the services of the petitioner it can at maximum only be considered as a motive. It cannot be said that the termination was based upon some misconduct for which an enquiry should be held. When a person has superannuated from the service, the rules framed under Section 319 will be applicable to such continuance of service or reemployment. It is a proved question. It cannot be said that the termination was based upon some misconduct for which an enquiry should be held. When a person has superannuated from the service, the rules framed under Section 319 will be applicable to such continuance of service or reemployment. It is a proved question. Even otherwise the petitioner having accepted the term of appointment which itself states only as temporary and based upon the project funding, the present contention that there must be an enquiry for misconduct cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the impugned order relieving the petitioner does not contain any reason. It is only when the petitioner make certain allegations the respondent has chosen to come with some possible explanation for not continuing in service. Under the circumstances, the relief can be granted to the petitioner by setting aside the order of termination cannot be countenanced by this Court. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 8. Mr.Mohamud Sharif, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the respondent has not paid to the petitioner the thirteen days salary for which he has been worked and also seeks some interest for non-payment of the salary. 9. Though the petitioner has never claimed the said salary, but immediately questioned the termination, the question of the respondent delaying the payment of salary may not arise in any event. In order to give a quietus to the controversy, the respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.7,000/-being one month salary payable to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.