Judgment : ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 30.9.2009 made in W.P. No. 39000 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the challenge made by the petitioner to the order dated 14.6.1989 passed by the first respondent, was negatived. 2. The appellant was originally appointed as a Junior Assistant on 13.6.1956 and later promoted as Assistant in the year 1962. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the year 1981, Assistant Director in the year 1991 and Deputy Director of Stationary and Printing in January 1995. Thereafter, she opted for voluntary retirement on 17.9.1997. 3. The Government, based on the proposal made by the Director of Stationary and Printing, upgraded one post of Deputy Director (Stationary), which was originally sanctioned as per G.O. Ms. No. 355, Transport Department, dated 21.3.1981, a Joint Director, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 126, Information and Tourism Department, dated 16.5.1997 in the scale of pay of ` 3,700-125-4,700-150-500. 4. It is stated that the appellant, who was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Stationary), which was sanctioned as per. G.O. Ms. No. 355, was holding the said post till her retirement on a regular basis and hence, as per G.O. Ms. No. 126 referred to above, she was entitled to the benefit of upgradation. Since the said benefit was not extended, she filed a representation to the first respondent on 19.11.1997 seeking the benefit of upgradation, followed by reminders dated 28.7.1998 and 29.12.1998. Since there was no follow up action, she filed W.P. No. 1826 of 1999 before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the appellant for upgradation in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 126 referred to above. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent, by order dated 14.6.1999, rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that she did not perform the duties and responsibilities of the post of Joint Director and she retired voluntarily prior to the framing of the ad hoc rules for the said post. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4774 of 1999 and on its abolition, the said case was transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 39000 of 2006. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4774 of 1999 and on its abolition, the said case was transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 39000 of 2006. 5. The learned single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the reply affidavit filed by the first respondent in the original application, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. The learned single Judge has accepted the stand taken by the 1st first respondent in the reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal that as the request made by the appellant relates to the period between 16.5.1997 to 17.9.1997, i.e. , from the date of issuance of the Government Order upgrading the post of Deputy Director to Joint Director and the date of her voluntary retirement, and she has not discharged the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Joint Director, her request for extending the benefits of upgradation was unsustainable and dismissed the writ petition. 8. Weare unable to accept the reasons stated in the reply affidavit filed by the first respondent before the Tribunal. The post of Deputy Director (Stationary) was originally sanctioned in the year 1981 and it was made permanent, in the year 1985. As per G.O. Ms. No. 126 dated 16.5.1997, the said post was upgraded as Joint Director. The appellant, who was promoted to the above referred post in January 1995, was holding the same till her retirement, i.e. , on 17.9.1997. Though there is another post, viz. , Deputy Director (Modernisation), that was not upgraded by the Government. Therefore, merely because the appellant retired voluntarily on 17.9.1997, it was not open to the respondents to contend that she is not holding the post of Joint Director, though it was upgraded as per the Government Order dated 16.5.1997. On the date of upgradation of the post of Deputy Director (Stationary) as Joint Director, except the appellant, there was no other person available to discharge the functions of the said post. Since the past of Deputy Director was merged in the new post of Joint Director, automatically the appellant became the Joint Director. 9. On the date of upgradation of the post of Deputy Director (Stationary) as Joint Director, except the appellant, there was no other person available to discharge the functions of the said post. Since the past of Deputy Director was merged in the new post of Joint Director, automatically the appellant became the Joint Director. 9. For all these reasons, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and direct the respondents to pay the benefiIs of upgradation to the appellant for the period in question within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.