Judgment : 1. The petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Office Manager at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Pudukottai. He has come forward to challenge the order of punishment viz.,stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect given to him. The petitioner had availed the remedies of appeal as well as review. Having lost those remedies, he has filed O.A.No.2411 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 2. Pending the Original Application, the petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. Infact at the time of filing of the OA, the petitioner already got retired from service. 3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 11.02.2002 justifying the punishment. 4. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.2267 of 2007. 5. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner claimed duty relief on the ground that he was a District level officer bearer of the Government Officials Union, Tiruchirapalli District and he is eligible to take duty relief for the purpose of doing association work and no exception can be taken for his coming late to the office. His stand was rejected by the respondents. It was stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner was having the habit of availing one or two hours of permission daily to attend to the affairs of his Union. He had not obtained permission from the Deputy Director/Principal and the charges framed against him were proved and only for the proven charges, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed. Though the petitioner claimed the relief on the basis of a Government letter, it was stated that it can be done only on a specific request. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of punishment. 6. As to whether office bearer of an association can do association work during the work hours came to be considered by several judgments of this Court. This Court had held that such a permission can never be granted at the cost of public exchequer and no department can grant any such permission for doing union work during working hours. See: 1. 1984 (2) L.L.J. 478 Secretary,T.N.E.B.Accounts Subordinate Union v. T.N.Electricity Board 2. 1995(1)L.L.J 1128 (DB) Secretary, T.N.E.B Accounts Subordinate Union v. T.N.Electicity Board. 7. This Court had held that such a permission can never be granted at the cost of public exchequer and no department can grant any such permission for doing union work during working hours. See: 1. 1984 (2) L.L.J. 478 Secretary,T.N.E.B.Accounts Subordinate Union v. T.N.Electricity Board 2. 1995(1)L.L.J 1128 (DB) Secretary, T.N.E.B Accounts Subordinate Union v. T.N.Electicity Board. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.