JUDGMENT :- 1. The memorandums dated 19.03.2002 and 16.05.2002 of the District Collector, Namakkal District, the 2nd respondent herein, impugned in this writ petition, directing the Commissioner, KolliHills Panchayat Union, Namakkal District, the 3rd respondent herein, to revise the date of regularisation with reference to a letter No.47729/E7/2000-5 dated 19.03.2002 of the Secretary to the Government, are only inter-departmental correspondence, which cannot be the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition. Unless appropriate orders are passed affecting the interests of the petitioner in the matter of regularisation and fixation of pay, there is no cause, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved. Now that the petitioner is aware of the proposed action, it is open to him to make a representation to the competent authorities. As no order of refixation of pay has been passed and followed by any recovery, the writ petition is not maintainable. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court. 2. In BachhittarSingh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has considered as to whether a note file which did not fructify into an order and communicated to the petitioner therein, can give rise to a cause of action and at paragraph Nos.9 and 10, held as follows: 9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by was stated in the file. 10. Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by was stated in the file. 10. Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character. 3. The views expressed in BachhittarSingh's case, have been followed in LaxminarayanR.Bhattad Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003(5) SCC 413 , where, the Supreme Court held, a right created under an order of a statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned, so as to confer an enforceable right. The said proposition of law has once again reaffirmed in SethiAuto Service Station Vs. Delhi Development Authority, reported in 2009 (1) SCC 180 , Where, the Apex Court held that internal notings and departmental communications between Government Agencies do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order, unless it culminates into an executable order, by communication to the person concerned, affecting his right or conferring any legal right. Reliance can also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Vartak Labour Union (2), reported in (2011) 4 SCC 200 . 4. In the light of the above judgments, this Court is not inclined to advert to the merits of this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.