Judgment :- 1. With an object to maintain and run the Rock Blasting Unit and other units purchased from the general fund of the Panchayat Union in accordance with the directions issued in G.O.Ms.No.1619/R.D.&LA Department dated 22.08.1970, the second respondent, the District Collector of Salem, has appointed five persons including the petitioner as Agricultural Engineering Supervisors in various panchayat unions in Salem District by order dated 21.11.1970. The petitioner was appointed as an Engineering Supervisor in the third respondent Panchayat Union. The nomenclature of the post was changed as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from 07.12.1970. Periodically, the post was sanctioned originally from 08.12.1971 to 31.07.1981 and subsequently from 01.08.1980 to 31.03.1982 by the Deputy Collector based on the proposals of the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Kabilarmalai. The petitioner worked for more than 16 years. He applied for leave from 09.07.1986 to 30.06.1991 on various occasions. He was granted leave up to 16.05.1987 with wages and he was granted leave on loss of pay from 17.05.1987 to 30.06.1991. He applied for posting on 01.07.1991 after availing leave for four years seven months and 26 days. Since no order was passed on his request to permit him to join duty, he sent a reminder dated 10.01.1992. More so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service with effect from 05.11.1986 invoking G.O.Ms.No.1046 Personal and Administrative Reforms (E.R.III) Department dated 13.11.1987. It is also alleged that G.O.Ms.No.1046 was invoked as he was on leave for more than four years. 2. The petitioner sent representations dated 24.02.1992, 23.04.1992, 03.06.1992 and 27.04.1993 to the second respondent requesting to reinstate him into service and to permit him to join duty. Based on his representations, the Inspection Officer, office of the District Collector, Salem District, instructed the petitioner to appear on 08.09.1995 for hearing his appeal. He was directed to produce the appointment order and other relevant documents at the time of hearing the appeal. Accordingly, he appeared before the Inspection Officer along with the relevant records on 08.09.1995, but no order was passed. Since no order was passed by the second respondent, the petitioner sent another representation dated 17.04.1996 to the first respondent, the Director of Rural Development requesting to reinstate him in service. Accordingly, he appeared before the Inspection Officer along with the relevant records on 08.09.1995, but no order was passed. Since no order was passed by the second respondent, the petitioner sent another representation dated 17.04.1996 to the first respondent, the Director of Rural Development requesting to reinstate him in service. As the first respondent passed an order on 17.09.1999 rejecting his request and confirming the order of the third respondent dated 13.02.1992 and the first respondent also noted that the action under G.O.Ms.No.1046 P&AR Department dated 13.11.1987 is in order, left with no alternative, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3956 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the orders dated 13.02.1992 of the third respondent and dated 17.09.1999 of the first respondent and to reinstate him with all benefits. After abolition of the Tribunal, the same has been transferred and renumbered as W.P.No.46114 of 2006. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. The 2nd respondent stated that the petitioner was on leave from 09.07.1986 to 30.06.1991 with pay or on loss of pay. It is stated that the Collector sanctioned posts only upto 31.03.1982. The post to which the petitioner was appointed was a temporary one. The third respondent has passed resolution on 11.12.1987 removing the petitioner from service as the need of the service was exhausted. Based on the said resolution, a proposal for removing the petitioner from service was sent to the second respondent. The second respondent passed an order dated 31.12.1991 instructing the third respondent to remove the petitioner from service based on the resolution. The third respondent issued the order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service relying on G.O.Ms.No.1046 P&AR Department dated 13.11.1987. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the second respondent, the District Collector, Salem. Hence the third respondent has no power and authority to pass the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service. The third respondent, being inferior authority, could not terminate the service of the petitioner, who was appointed by the second respondent, higher authority. The learned counsel further submits that the third respondent admitted in the reply affidavit and also in the impugned order that the petitioner was on leave. The third respondent, being inferior authority, could not terminate the service of the petitioner, who was appointed by the second respondent, higher authority. The learned counsel further submits that the third respondent admitted in the reply affidavit and also in the impugned order that the petitioner was on leave. Since he was on leave, the third respondent was not justified in removing the petitioner from service. It is a different matter, if the third respondent refused to sanction leave and directed the petitioner to report duty and the petitioner did not report duty. The learned counsel also brings to the notice of this Court that the G.O.Ms.No.1046, P& AR Department, dated 13.11.1987 was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the order passed in O.A.No.1120 of 1989 etc batch dated 21.10.1999. The G.O.Ms.No.1046 provided for removal of service for unauthorised absence from duty. The Tribunal set aside the above said G.O.Ms.No.1046 and quashed the termination orders based on the G.O. and directed the concerned authorities to proceed further with the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Hence the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is bad as the same is passed relying on G.O.Ms.No.1046. The learned counsel also submits that before passing the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 the petitioner was not heard and it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all other persons, who are appointed along with the petitioner, are continued in service. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the additional typed set of papers relating to one Govindarajan, who was appointed along with the petitioner and was retained in service even after his service as Engineering Supervisor was not required. Since the rock blasting unit and other units were auctioned as those units were condemned, the post of the Engineering Supervisor had become redundant. However, the said Govindarajan continued upto his retirement and he was also sanctioned pension. The Government issued G.O.(2D)No.52, Rural Development and Local Administration dated 20.07.2006 regularising his services upto retirement under F.R.22, for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioner, the same treatment should be given to him. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner remained absent from duty for four years and therefore, he was correctly removed from service by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the same treatment should be given to him. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner remained absent from duty for four years and therefore, he was correctly removed from service by the third respondent. The learned Government Advocate further submits that since his work was not required in the third respondent-Panchayat Union, he could not seek for continuance in the employment. According to the learned Government Advocate, the Collector sanctioned the post only upto 31.03.1982. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim for employment. It is also argued that the petitioner could not rely on Govindarajans case as he was not removed from service. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. The petitioner and four others were appointed as Engineering Supervisors in various panchayat Unions in Salem District by the second respondent by an order dated 21.11.1970. The appointment of Engineering Supervisors was pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.1619, R.D.&L.A Department, dated 22.08.1970. The purpose of the Government Order was to maintain and run the rock blasting and other units of the Panchayat Union. The appointment order states that the petitioner and others were appointed on temporary basis. The petitioner was continued in service for 16 years and thereafter he applied for leave. Even as per the reply affidavit filed before this Court, it is stated that the petitioner was on leave from 09.07.1986, which runs as follows: "During his service, he entered on leave from 9.7.96 as follows:- 09.07.1986 to 01.09.1986 : UEL on Medical Certificate 02.09.1986 to 03.09.1986: Saturday and Sunday 04.09.1986 to 07.11.1986 : UEL on Medical Certificate 08.11.1986 to 09.11.1986: Saturday & Sunday 10.11.1986 to 14.11.1986: Casual Leave 15.11.1986 and 16.11.1986: Saturday & Sunday 17.11.1986 to 16.01.1987: Earned Leave 17.01.1987 to 16.03.1987: Earned Leave 17.03.1987 to 16.05.1987: UEL on Private Affairs 17.05.1987 to 30.06.1"991: L.L.P." After expiry of leave on 30.06.1991, the petitioner requested for posting on 01.07.1991. Since no order was passed, he gave a representation dated 10.1.1992 seeking permission to join duty. While so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service. The impugned order reads as follows: “Tamil” 8. The impugned order is solely based on G.O.Ms.No.1046, P& AR Department, dated 13.11.1987. The said Government Order provided for removal of service for unauthorised absence. While so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service. The impugned order reads as follows: “Tamil” 8. The impugned order is solely based on G.O.Ms.No.1046, P& AR Department, dated 13.11.1987. The said Government Order provided for removal of service for unauthorised absence. In fact, the said Government Order could not be invoked in this case as the petitioner could not be described as a person, who was on unauthorised leave. The petitioner was on sanctioned leave with pay or on loss of pay. Hence Government Order No.1046 should not have been invoked in this case. Even assuming that the third respondent invoked G.O.Ms.No.1046, the same could not be sustained in view of the order made in O.A.No.1120 of 1989 etc batch dated 21.10.1999. The Government implemented the order of the Tribunal and issued G.O.Ms.No.153, P&AR Department, dated 08.08.2000. As per the said Government Order, departmental proceedings should have been initiated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and appropriate orders based on the facts of each case have to be passed. In view of the order dated 21/10/1999 made in O.A.No.1120 of 1989 etc batch and also G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 08.08.2000 referred to above, the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 is bad and illegal, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, after having sanctioned the leave for four years, the third respondent was not justified in removing the petitioner from service. It is a different matter that the third respondent refused to sanction leave and directed the petitioner to report duty and inspite of such a direction, the petitioner had not joined duty. 9. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner as the same resulted in serious civil consequences. The impugned order is passed without notice and the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents seek to sustain the impugned order stating that the work of Engineering Supervisor was not required after 1987. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the resolution No.5 was passed on 11.12.1987 by the third respondent-Panchayat Union to remove the petitioner from service since his work was not required any more. The resolution was forwarded to the second respondent for approval. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the resolution No.5 was passed on 11.12.1987 by the third respondent-Panchayat Union to remove the petitioner from service since his work was not required any more. The resolution was forwarded to the second respondent for approval. It is further stated that the second respondent passed an order dated 31.12.1991 instructing the third respondent to remove the petitioner from service as determined in their resolution dated 11.12.1987. It is further stated that the removal is in accordance with the order dated 31.12.1991 of the second respondent. 10. I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid averments made by the respondents. The petitioner was not removed from service on the ground that his services were no more required. On the other hand, the impugned order states that the petitioner was removed from service as he took leave for more than four years. The impugned order is solely based on G.O.Ms.No.1046 dated 13.11.1987. Though the resolution No.5 dated 11.12.1987 and the order dated 31.12.1991 of the Deputy Collector, Salem are mentioned in the reference column of the impugned order, the body of the order giving reasons for termination is only based on G.O.Ms.No.1046. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. The first respondent confirmed the order of the third respondent without applying his mind. The first respondent also approved the action of the third respondent basing on G.O.Ms.No.1046. Hence, the order of the first respondent confirming the order of the third respondent is also liable to be interfered with. 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the order was passed by the third respondent in 1992, he made various representations to the second respondent for his interference, but those representations were not considered. Therefore, he approached the first respondent. The first respondent passed the impugned order on 17.09.1999 confirming the order of the third respondent. Immediately he approached the Tribunal by filing the O.A that is now being considered by this Court. Hence, the petitioner could not be blamed for delay on his part. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that now the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2005. He was to retire on 30.06.2005 on reaching the age of superannuation. Hence, the petitioner could not be blamed for delay on his part. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that now the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2005. He was to retire on 30.06.2005 on reaching the age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the orders relating to one Govindarajan, who is similarly situated. The said Govindarajan was continued in employment until his retirement. The Government passed the G.O.(2D) No.52, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 20.07.2006 regularising the services of Govindarajan until his date of retirement under F.R.22. The said Govindarajan is also situated like the petitioner. His work was also not required after 1987 as the rock blasting units were condemned. But the service of Govindarajan was utilised in Panchayat Union and the same was approved by the District Collector, Salem, the second respondent. Later, the Government also issued the aforesaid Government Order relaxing his service for the purpose of granting pension. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to forego wages for the non employment period though he is entitled to wages as the termination is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks similar treatment as given to Govindarajan. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. As stated above, the petitioner was retained in service even after the resolution in 1987. It is stated in the counter that the Collector sanctioned the posts only upto 1982. But the petitioner was retained in service until the impugned order dated 13.12.1992 was passed removing him from service. As stated above, the petitioner was removed from service not on the ground of non availability of work. On the other hand, he was removed from service solely based on G.O.Ms.No.1046 dated 13.11.1987. As I have already held that the action of the third respondent and the first respondent removing the petitioner from service based on the G.O.Ms.No.1046 is illegal, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his services until his retirement by issuing appropriate orders as in the case of Govindarajan so that the petitioner would be paid pension. 14. 14. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed and the fourth respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders regularising the services of the petitioner until the date of his retirement, like Govindarajan in the light of the G.O.(2D)No.52, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 20.07.2006 for the purpose of granting pension, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.