Judgment :- 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.4.2008 passed in W.P. No.8018 of 2006. 2. The Writ Petitioner, who joined in service as Noon Meal Organiser in the year 1979, was promoted as Supervisor Grade II in the Integrated Child Development Scheme, by the Director of Social Welfare after completion of 14 years of service. While she was working as Supervisor Grade II in Sengarai, her mother died during January 2005 and she gave a request to the Child Development Project Officer, Kolli Hills, for grant of leave. It is her further case that even before she could join duty after the demise of her mother, her only daughter also died suddenly on 27.4.2005 and hence, she approached the said Officer for grant of leave again for which she was issued a Memo dated 12.7.2005 followed with another Memo dated 2.11.2005 calling for explanation for her continuous absence. It is stated that despite her explanation and representations dated 03.08.2005 and 16.01.2006 seeking permission to rejoin duty, no order was passed nor she was allowed to join duty. Hence, she filed the Writ Petition for Mandamus directing the Child Development Project Officer, Kolli Hills, Namakkal District to allow her to continue her employment as Supervisor Grade II in Sengarai with all arrears of salary and attendant benefits. 3. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record, allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to pay the salary for the period for which, the Petitioner was not allowed to work. The learned Judge also granted liberty to the authorities to take action in accordance with law, if warranted. Aggrieved by the first portion of the order, the authorities have preferred the present Appeal. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader representing the Appellants contended that since the Respondent had absented herself from work for more than 3 ½ years without permission from the authorities, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought not to have directed to pay the salary for the period she had not worked and sought for interference of this Court. 5. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought not to have directed to pay the salary for the period she had not worked and sought for interference of this Court. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that when the Respondent requested the Second Appellant for grant of leave due to the death of her mother and her only daughter within short span of time, the Second Appellant without rejecting her Leave Applications, issued a Memo dated 12.7.2005 calling upon her to give explanation followed by another Memo during November 2005 and despite her explanation and reminders, no order was passed on the same. He further submitted that neither the Leave Application of the Respondent was rejected nor any action was initiated against her for her absence. 6. We have perused the materials on record. From a perusal of the impugned Memorandums dated 12.7.2005 and 2.11.2005, we find that no period of absence has been mentioned. Admittedly, no action was taken on the Leave Application submitted by the Respondent due to the death of her mother and the sudden demise of her only daughter because of which she could not attend duty. She was also not permitted to join duty. Once the Leave Application is submitted, the authorities must have passed orders on the same. But issuing mere Memorandum without taking any action on the Leave Application or denial of opportunity to the Respondent to putforth her case, amounts to violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 7. Considering the miserable situation faced by the Respondent and taking into consideration the past service rendered by her, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge with regard to the direction to the authorities to permit the Respondent to rejoin duty. 8. Though the Respondent had some miserable incidents in her family, that cannot be a ground for not joining duty. It is for the Respondent to verify her leave details and to ascertain whether leave has been sanctioned. Since the Respondent failed in her duties, she is not entitled for backwages for the period she had not worked. To that extent, the order of the learned Judge is set aside. 9. The Appellants are directed to reinstate the Respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of his order. 10. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. To that extent, the order of the learned Judge is set aside. 9. The Appellants are directed to reinstate the Respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of his order. 10. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.