Judgment :- 1. As the facts leading to both writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner with a prior permission and written approval given by the 1st respondent, visited the United States of America and stayed there along with her daughter for the periods from 07.10.2005 to 06.01.2005, where her daughter is working as Private Medical Practitioner. Further, the petitioner's daughter having become pregnant and was in delivery stage, the petitioner's original request to visit and stay in USA was necessitated in view of her daughter's delivery time fixed by the doctors. Therefore, as she was not able to complete her programme as proposed, she was compelled to be there with her daughter for another three months, but, well before the expiry of the three months permission, the petitioner has also submitted an application seeking an extension of leave from 07.01.2006 to 02.04.2006 through her husband on 02.01.2006. Though the 1st respondent accepted the written request submitted by the petitioner's husband, the same was subsequently circulated for getting approval of the 1st respondent. 2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has reported back for duty on 03.02.2006, that too, without availing the leave as sought for by way of extension of leave application dated 02.01.2006. After reaching back, the petitioner has also given joining letter dated 03.02.2006 and the same was also accepted belatedly and after that, the petitioner was issued with posting order on 08.03.2006 after a lapse of 33 days. At this juncture, the grievance of the petitioner is that she was issued with charge memo containing two charges, which are extracted as under:- i. That in the capacity of responsible 'Bill Clerk' has not disclosed the fact of staying at U.S.A. from 07.01.2006 to 02.02.2006 in her leave application and concealed the facts to the authority concerned. ii. That she in the capacity of responsible 'Bill Clerk' has failed to get any prior permission for her over stayal, i.e. from 07.01.2006 to 02.02.2006 as laid down in Head Office orders and violate the rules in force. Thereafter, though the department proceeded with departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b), the disciplinary authority finally dropped the proceedings and thereafter, the petitioner was awarded with a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, though the department proceeded with departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b), the disciplinary authority finally dropped the proceedings and thereafter, the petitioner was awarded with a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, when an appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent, by considering the facts as well as the explanation given by the petitioner, cancelled the above mentioned punishment. Therefore, the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is, the period from 03.02.2006 to 07.03.2006, namely, 33 days, should be regularised as a duty period. As the same was not done so, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.05.2008. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's immediate junior was promoted on 30.05.2007 without considering the case of the petitioner. Therefore, another representation dated 10.10.2009 was presented before the 1st respondent. since both the representations are pending on the file of the 1st respondent, the petitioner, having seen no answer, was compelled to approach this Court for the aforesaid prayer. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is admittedly true that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. After completion of the disciplinary proceedings, she was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect by the 2nd respondent. The said punishment, on appeal, was cancelled by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the net result would be the period from 03.02.2006 to 07.03.2006, namely, 33 days, should be regularised as a duty period, but, that has not been done. In view of the cancellation of the punishment imposed against the petitioner by the 1st respondent, she is entitled to get the benefit of regularisation from 03.02.2006 to 07.03.2006, that is forming part of the representation dated 06.05.2008. In respect of the 2nd representation dated 10.10.2009, which is already given by the petitioner, should be looked into, but since both written representations are pending for last three years, this Court is of the view that both representations should be disposed of in accordance with law. In respect of the 2nd representation dated 10.10.2009, which is already given by the petitioner, should be looked into, but since both written representations are pending for last three years, this Court is of the view that both representations should be disposed of in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representations in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the present writ petitions are disposed of. No Costs.