Judgment :- The petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector of Police in Korukkupet Railway Police Station. He filed O.A.No.6588 of 1998 before the Tribunal, seeking for regularisation and refixation of pay in the post of Sub Inspector of Police. 2. Pending the OA, the Tribunal, by its order, dated 18. 98, granted an interim direction not to revert the petitioner from the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The said interim order came to be continued until further order by the Tribunal. The reason given by the tribunal was that though the petitioner was initially promoted on temporary basis, his name was included in the C list of Head Constable fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police. He was also promised that regular promotion of Sub Inspector of Police will be granted on successful completion of institutional training by proceedings, dated 4. 1997. The petitioner was sent for institutional training which he had completed and was made himself fit for regular promotion. 3. It was only when the petitioner was about to reach the age of superannuation on 38. 1998, apprehending that he may be reverted from the post of Sub Inspector of Police, he moved the Tribunal and got a stay order against reversion. Though the Tribunal had passed an interim order, the respondents did not file any application for vacating the interim order. On the other hand, they filed an application in M.A.No.1560 of 2002 to fix an early hearing date. 4. During the pendency of the OA, the petitioner also got retired from service by an order, dated 38. 98. In the retirement order, in paragraphs 9 and 10, it was stated as follows: "9. While the matter was in process to revert Tr.P. Gopal, RPSI as HC he filed an O.A. before the TAT and the Honble Tribunal in their order in O.A. No.6588/98 dated 18. 98 has directed the respondents not to revert the S.I till 28. 98 on which date the case was posted for hearing and the TAT has adjourned the case for hearing on 38. 98 till which date the stay has also been extended. 10. In view of the fact that the above O.A. is now posted to 9. 98 till which date the stay has been extended for final orders, Tr.P. Gopal is allowed to retire on 38. 98 till which date the stay has also been extended. 10. In view of the fact that the above O.A. is now posted to 9. 98 till which date the stay has been extended for final orders, Tr.P. Gopal is allowed to retire on 38. 98 A.N. on Superannuation without prejudice to the outcome of the O.A filed by him in O.A.No.6588/98." 5. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 28. 1998. In paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit, it was averred as follows: "5 ....There is no doubt the applicant was promoted as Temporary Sub Inspector of Police. But it was due to wrong fixing of his seniority. As and when the defect was found out it was brought to the notice of the Director Genl. of Police, Chennai thro the Inspector Genl. of Police Railways, Chennai vide Lr.C.No.A1/5440/98, dt.14. 98 of Supdt. Of Rly. Police, Chennai and Lr.C.No.A1/154/96, dt.24. 98 of Inspector Genl. Of Police, Rlys., Chennai. His pay has been refixed and now he is drawing pay in the Special Grade Head Constable with effect from 27. 96 in new scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162/Fin.(P.C.) Dept. dt.14. 98." 6. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder, dated 30.98. In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder, it was stated as follows: "4. The applicant further submits that the averments made in the reply affidavit that the Director-General of Police, Chennai has requested the 2nd respondent to revert the applicant as Head constable by an order dt.4. 98 is false. The applicant has been serving as Sub-Inspector of Police from 1996 and till date he has not been served with any order of the Director-General of Police, Chennai or orders of the respondents with reference to his revision of seniority. The averments made in the reply affidavit that the applicants service has to be taken into consideration only from the date of his transfer to railway police and he is eligible for promotion as Head Constable is totally false and denied. The services rendered by the applicant in the city Armed Reserve cannot be taken away at this distance of time. The applicants seniority was correctly fixed and he was promoted as S.I. Of Police....." 7. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.34086 of 2006. 8. Mr. The services rendered by the applicant in the city Armed Reserve cannot be taken away at this distance of time. The applicants seniority was correctly fixed and he was promoted as S.I. Of Police....." 7. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.34086 of 2006. 8. Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned Senior counsel representing Mr. M. Muthappan, counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that a grave injustice had been done to the petitioner. Inasmuch as the order of reversion was given without notice, the reversion order has to be set aside. In the present case, the petitioner was promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police on 27. 96. He had also continued in the said post and finally got retired in the year 1998, thereby serving the post for more than two years without any hindrance. 9. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.A. Hameed Vs. State of A.P. and Another reported in 2001 (9) SCC 261. In the said judgment the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "...Learned counsel for the respondent State of A.P. contends that the appellant was holding the post of District Inspector of Local Funds (Account) on a temporary basis and as such he had no right to hold the post. In the counter affidavit filed before this Court it is stated that at the time when the appellant was promoted the senior persons had left Telangana area and as such his promotion was without considering the senior persons. We are of the view that the reversion of the appellant after he held the higher post for more than a decade was wholly unjustified. If his appointment was temporary or irregular in any manner he should have been reverted within a reasonable period. Even after the reversion order was passed the appellant continued to hold the post till 1985 under the stay order granted by the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the view that the reversion of the appellant from the post of District Inspector of Local Funds (Accounts) after a period of 11 years has done more harm than good. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of reversion. Mr. B. Kanta Rao states that the appellant retired on attaining superannuation in September 1993. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of reversion. Mr. B. Kanta Rao states that the appellant retired on attaining superannuation in September 1993. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we are not inclined to give back wages to the appellant from the date of his reversion in the year 1985 till the date of his retirement. The respondent shall fix the pay of the appellant in the rank of District Inspector of Local Fund (Accounts) notionally on the date of retirement for the purpose of post-retirement benefits. The respondents shall fix the revised pension to which the appellant is entitled within three months from the receipt of this order He shall be entitled to revised enhanced pension from the date of his retirement. The respondent shall pay the arrears of pension to the respondent within further period of one month. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs." 10. In the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court and the petitioner having retired from service, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. 11. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as if he had served the post of Sub Inspector of Police on regular basis and pay his arrears of salary arising out of such pay fixation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to calculate his pension as if he had retired from service in the post of Sub Inspector of Police and continue to pay pension on the basis of the revised calculation.