Judgment :- 1. After the petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Grade-III (Junior Drafting Officer) on 23rd Feb., 1980, through employment exchange, she continued to work till 5th June, 1983. Subsequently, the Chief Engineer, 2nd respondent herein, appointed the petitioner temporarily as Draughting Officer (Draughtsman Grade-II) on 6th Sept., 1983. Accordingly, the petitioner also joined duty on 6th Oct., 1983. Thereafter, for want of vacancy, she was reverted back on 31st Oct., 1983, to the post of Junior Draughting Officer. However, she was promoted as Draughting Officer on 31st March, 1984 and she was posted to work in the Estate Officer, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore on deputation. On her promotion, she joined duty on 7th May, 1984 as Draughting Officer. Later on, the petitioner made a written request dated 11th Jan., 1989, to the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Pollachi, to regularise her services as Draughting Officer. The 3rd respondent, by issuing order dated 3rd Feb., 1989, in proceeding No.Aatchi 4(1)/38310/89-55, again reverted the petitioner as Junior Draughting Officer indicating that the petitioner has become junior in one unit seniority. On that basis, she was posted as Junior Draughting Officer to the construction division in Coimbatore. 2. Aggrieved by the said reversion order as Junior Draughting Officer after a period of six years, the petitioner filed O.A. No.1307/89 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order of reversion. The Tribunal, by order dated 16th Sept., 1989, in a batch of connected O.A. Nos.188/89, etc., directed to create certain number of supernumerary posts in lieu of equal number of posts in the lower category so that eligible persons, whose claims have been overlooked in view of the implementation of the orders earlier given, can be suitably protected. 3. Mr. Vadivelu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the light of the above order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1307/89, the services of the petitioner should be regularised as Draughting Officer w.e.f. 6th Oct., 1983, the date of jer joining as Draughting Officer with increment and pay protection. As the respondents have not shown any favourable response, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Application No.447/96 in O.A. No.1307/89. Subsequently, the Government, by issuing G.O. Ms. As the respondents have not shown any favourable response, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Application No.447/96 in O.A. No.1307/89. Subsequently, the Government, by issuing G.O. Ms. No.395 PWD dated 22nd June, 1996, created 340 supernumerary posts of Draughting Officer w.e.f. 27th Sept., 1982, to protect the promotion made to the Junior Draughting Officer prior to the amendment of the rules. Subsequently, another proceeding dated 30th June, 1989, was issued by the Chief Engineer, 2nd respondent herein, releasing the panel for the post of Draughting Officer for the year 1998-1999, wherein the name of the petitioner was found in S. No.46 in the annexure with one unit seniority No.185. Subsequently, the Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer (General), 2nd respondent herein, by issuing a circular No.S4 (V)/35346/96 dated 10th Sept., 1999, informed that 340 Junior Draughting Officers are selected for promotion as Draughting Officer in the newly created post of Draughting Officer by again indicating that the Junior Draughting Officers so promoted as Draughting Officers in the supernumerary posts are eligible to get their pay fixed on par with their junior, K.Palanisamy w.e.f. the actual date of joining the post of Draughting Officer. Based on the above order, the 3rd respondent, Superintending Engineer, promoted the petitioner as Draughting Officer in the supernumerary post w.e.f. the date of joining the said post. 4. Mr.Gopinathan, learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot have a grievance since the Government had already created supernumerary posts and further directed to give her all the benefits from the actual date of joining in the supernumerary post of Draughting Officer, as this is the intention of the Government Order. Further, when the petitioner is getting the benefit on par with K.Palanisamy w.e.f. the date of joining the supernumerary post, no other consideration can be given to her prayer. On that basis prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The only contention raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner, after appointment as Draughting Officer on 6th Oct., 1983, she was reverted on 31st Oct., 1983 and after a short break of 5 months, again she was promoted as Draughting Officer on 7th May, 1984. Once again, she was reverted on 3rd Dec., 1989, as Junior Draughting Officer. Once again, she was reverted on 3rd Dec., 1989, as Junior Draughting Officer. But the Government issued order promoting the petitioner by creation of supernumerary posts, since K.Palanisamy, who is junior to the petitioner herein, was appointed as Draughting Officer w.e.f. 27th Sept., 1982, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to continue as Draughting Officer from the initial date of joining, viz., 6th Oct., 1983. 7. The respondents have not filed any counter. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner solely relied upon G.O. Ms. No.395, Public Works Department, dated 22nd June, 1989, for deciding the grant of relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appointed as Draughting Officer on 6th Oct., 1983, but she was reverted back on 31st Oct., 1983 and after a short break of 5 months, she was again appointed as Draughting Officer on 7th May, 1984. But, due to want of vacancy, she was again reverted back as Junior Draughting Officer on 3rd Feb., 1989, informing that the petitioner has become junior in one unit seniority and she was posted by the Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore as Junior Draughting Officer to Construction Division Cooperative Department in Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the reversion order reverting the petitioner as junior draughting officer after a period of six years of service as Draughting Officer, she filed O.A. No.1307/89 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the order of reversion dated 13th Feb., 1989. The Tribunal, by its order dated 16th Sept., 1991, in O.A. No.1307/89 alongwith batch of applications in O.A. Nos.188/89, etc., passed the following order :-“In O.A. Nos.188/89, etc., we have considered a batch of cases relating to this category and have directed as below :-1) Protection should be afforded to all promotions made till the date of actual issue of the amendment to the rules. The services should be regularised, increment and pay protection should be given. 2) For the purpose of seniority, panels may be drawn up for each year with reference to the actual number of vacancies that had arisen during the year based on combined single unit seniority and qualifications with reference to the crucial date for preparation of the panel in each year. In respect of appointments made in each year, the crucial date for considering the eligibility for inclusion in the panel for that year should be a date prior to the year. In respect of appointments made in each year, the crucial date for considering the eligibility for inclusion in the panel for that year should be a date prior to the year. 3) While such panels may be the basis for seniority, promotion already made will stand. 4) If this will cause hardship in that the seniors would be denied the promotion for want of vacancies, the only course would be to create certain number of supernumerary posts in lieu of an equal number of posts in the lower category so that eligible persons whose claims have been overlooked due to improper implementation of the orders earlier may be suitably protected. The respondents are directed to take action in this case in accordance with the above directions.” 8. Consequent to the abovesaid order passed by the Tribunal, protection should be given to the petitioner in respect of her promotion as Draughting Officer by regularising her services w.e.f. 6th Oct., 1983, the date on which the petitioner joined as Draughting Officer. Instead, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner in Ref. No.Aatchi 4 (4)/85414/89 dated 11th Sept., 1992, that the question of regularisation of the petitioners services in the post of Draughting Officer will be considered after the final disposal of the O.A., though the petitioners O.A. No.1307/89 was finally disposed of on 16th Sept., 1991 as stated above. Therefore, the petitioner caused a lawyers notice to the Chief Engineer, 2nd respondent herein and the Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore, to act on the basis of the abovesaid order passed by the Tribunal. After the receipt of the above said notice, the Superintending Engineer referred the matter for regularisation to the Chief Engineer, the 2nd respondent herein. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent, Superintending Engineer, Erode, by order dated 2nd Aug., 1995, regularised the services of the petitioner under General Rule 23 (a) as Draughting Officer w.e.f. 6th Oct., 1983, the date on which the petitioner originally joined as Draughting Officer. In the meanwhile, since the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.188/89, etc., came to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18573/94 on 24th Oct., 1994, the Government, accepting the judgment of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, issued G.O. Ms. In the meanwhile, since the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.188/89, etc., came to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18573/94 on 24th Oct., 1994, the Government, accepting the judgment of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, issued G.O. Ms. No.395, Public Works Department dated 22nd June, 1998, creating 340 supernumerary posts of Draughting Officer w.e.f. 27th Sept., 1982 to protect the promotions made to the Junior Draughting Officer. In the said G.O. No.395, the Government also directed that the individuals so accommodated against the supernumerary posts created are eligible to get their pay fixed on par with junior, K.Palanisamy, w.e.f. the date of their joining in the post of Junior Draughting Officer. 9. The grievance of the petitioner raises only in this context. When the Government, while accepting the order passed by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, has issued G.O. Ms. No.395, Public Works Department dated 22nd June, 1998, creating 340 supernumerary posts of Draughting Officer w.e.f. 27th Sept., 1982, to protect the promotions made to the Junior Draughting Officers prior to the amendment of the rules by specifically directing that the individuals to be accommodated in the supernumerary posts created by G.O. Ms. No.395 are eligible to get their pay fixed on par with K.Palanisamy w.e.f. their date of joining the post of Draughting Officer, whether the petitioner is entitled to get the post as well as pay protection on par with K.Palanisamy from the date of her joining as Draughting Officer, i.e., 6th Oct., 1983. 10. When G.O. Ms. No.395, Public Works Dept., dated 22nd June, 1998 was issued, the Government Order had specifically accorded sanction for creation of 340 supernumerary posts in the category of Draughting Officer w.e.f. 27th Sept., 1982, the date on which K.Palanisamy was promoted to accommodate the personnel mentioned in the annexure to the Government Order. The said order further directs that the individual to be accommodated against supernumerary posts created by the said Government Order are eligible to get their pay fixed on par with K.Palanisamy w.e.f. the date of the individual joining the post of Draughting Officer, which makes the position clear that the petitioner is also eligible to get her pay fixed on par with K.Palanisamy w.e.f. the date of joining the post of Draughting Officer. The term supernumerary post is a term of art, well recognised in service jurisprudence. The following are the features of the supernumerary post :-“i) It is always a permanent post; ii) It is created to accommodate the lien of an officer, who in the opinion of the authority competent to create such a post, is entitled to hold a lien against the regular permanent post; iii) It is created due to non-availability of a regular permanent post. Such post is personal to the officer for whom it is created and stands abolished as soon as the officer for whom it was created vacates it; iv) It is a shadow post, inasmuch as no duties are attached to it and the officer concerned performs duties in some other vacant temporary or permanent post.” In the above background, when the Government Order candidly mentions that the individuals so accommodated in the supernumerary posts are eligible to get their pay fixed on par with K.Palanisamy w.e.f. the date of their joining the post of Draughting Officer, the Chief Engineer, 2nd respondent herein, instead of acting on the basis of the mandate given by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.395, by allowing the petitioner to enjoy the benefits of protection in terms of post as well as pay, the very purpose of issuance of G.O. Ms. No.395 would be defeated if they are not paid with the financial benefits on par with K.Palanisamy. It is relevant to keep in mind that when the Government has passed G.O. Ms. No.395 conferring the individuals to enjoy the benefits of supernumerary posts on par with K.Palanisamy w.e.f. the date of their joining the post of Draughting Officer, the 2nd respondent cannot sit on the mandate issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.395 and limit the benefit of supernumerary posts to the petitioner by saying that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit only from the date of creation of the supernumerary post, since this is not the intention of the Government. 11. To further fortify the stand of Mr.Vadivelu, learned counsel for the petitioner, a reported judgment of the Supreme Court in D.K.Reddy & Anr. -Vs – Union of India & Ors. 11. To further fortify the stand of Mr.Vadivelu, learned counsel for the petitioner, a reported judgment of the Supreme Court in D.K.Reddy & Anr. -Vs – Union of India & Ors. reported in (1995 (3) SLR (SC) 97 rules that while accommodating the individuals in the supernumerary posts, care should be taken to see that the very creation of the supernumerary posts would not become otiose and meaning less. When G.O. Ms. No.395 dated 22nd June, 1996, unequivocally directs that the individuals to be accommodated against the supernumerary posts created by the order of the Tribunal are eligible to get their pay fixed on par with K.Palanisamy with effect from their date of joining the post of Draughting Officer, any less benefits given to the petitioner, not on par with K.Palanisamy, will be not only running against the mandate of G.O. Ms. No.395, but the same will go against the very purpose of creation of supernumerary posts by making the creation of supernumerary posts otiose and meaningless and will also be against the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred above. 12. Not only that, even no law can permit a senior to get less pay than his junior. Only to avoid senior officer getting lower pay than his junior and further to avoid senior officiating low position in administration, the concept of supernumerary posts have emerged with innovative device to do away with the supernumerary posts the moment a person working in the said supernumerary posts gets retired, transferred, resigns, terminated or dies. Whileso, one can easily visualise a situation in any administrative setup, a small disharmony always leads to biggest deadlock in the event of allowing seniors holding higher position than his junior, without enjoying higher pay than his junior. Only to avoid this fluid situation in the office, the concept of supernumerary post has been coined. Such an innovative concept cannot be allowed to blur the purpose for which it was introduced. Further, if the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is allowed to stay, its continuance will run not only counter to G.O. Ms. No.395, but will continue to keep the pay difference allowing the senior getting less pay than his junior, K.Palanisamy, and further this anomaly will render the creation of supernumerary posts otiose and meaningless. Further, if the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is allowed to stay, its continuance will run not only counter to G.O. Ms. No.395, but will continue to keep the pay difference allowing the senior getting less pay than his junior, K.Palanisamy, and further this anomaly will render the creation of supernumerary posts otiose and meaningless. In this premise, since the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent does not fall in line with G.O. Ms. No.395, the same is liable to be modified. 13. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned order seeking to limit the benefit of the supernumerary posts is against G.O. Ms. No.395, Public Works Department, dated 22nd June, 1998 and this Court further holds that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit from the date of the petitioner joining the post of Draughting Officer, i.e., 6th Oct., 1983. Accordingly, while answering the prayer in favour of the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to pass orders in modification of the order issued by the 2nd respondent in circular memo No.S4 (5)/35346/96 dated 10th Sept., 1998, and proceedings No.S4 (5)/49367/98 dated 26th Nov., 1998 and orders issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings Roc. No.4236/98/A2 dated 24th Sept., 1998 and proceeding No.5090/98-1/A2 dated 23rd Dec., 1998 and declare that the petitioner is deemed to have continued as Draughting Officer in a supernumerary post of Draughting Officer w.e.f. the date of her joining duty in the post of Draughting Officer on 6th Oct., 1983 and will also have her pay fixed on par with K.Palanisamy from 6th Oct., 1983 onwards. It is needless to mention that the petitioner had served in the post of Junior Draughting Officer for a short period during which she was reverted for want of vacancy and, only, that period during which she was reverted, the respondents are going to have her scale of pay fixed on par with junior, K.Palanisamy, and, therefore, the respondents would not be put to much financial burden. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.