JUDGMENT :- 1. The Original Application in O.A.No.283 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 25.08.1972 as Assistant Professor (Economics) in Muthurangam Government Arts College, Vellore. Thereafter, he served in various colleges and the details of the same are as follows: 25.08.1972 to August 1976 - Assistant Professor (Economics) Muthurangam Government Arts College, Vellore. August 1976 to July 1977 - Assistant Professor, Government Arts College, Udumalpettai. July 1977 to November 1979 - Assistant Professor, Government Arts College, Cuddalore. November 1979 to August 1982 -Assistant Professor, Government Arts College, Ariyalur. August 1982 to October 1982 -Assistant Professor, Government Mens Arts College, Kumbakonam. October 1982 to 1987 -Assistant Professor (Head of the Department) Government Arts College, Chidambaram. 1987 to October 1999 -Selection Grade Lecturer(Economics) Government Arts College, Chidambaram. 3. While the petitioner was working as Selection Grade Lecturer, he was transferred by an order dated 25.10.1999 to the All India Civil Services Coaching Centre, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40. It is stated that he was transferred to the said centre without his consent. 4. The petitioner has averred that his entire record of service is without any blemishes. He has written several books on the title of 'Indian Economy' and 'Agricultural Economics', which secured two first prizes and got appreciation from all corners. 5. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 12.06.2002 to the second respondent requesting him to re-appoint him on his reaching the age of superannuation on 31.08.2002, so as to serve till the end of the academic year (i.e.) 31.05.2003. The fifth respondent has also recommended the same vide his letters dated 20.06.2002 and 26.08.2002. But the second respondent issued an order dated 23.08.2002, transferring the petitioner from the All India Civil Services Coaching Centre to Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Government Arts College, Tirutani. Immediately, the petitioner gave a representation dated 23.08.2002 to the first respondent, seeking retention in the fifth respondent/Coaching Centre till the end of the academic year. 6. But the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.10.2002, stating that since the petitioner did not join the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Government Arts College, Tirutani, as directed by the second respondent in the order dated 23.08.2002, he has no right to continue up to 31.05.2003. Had the petitioner joined at Tirutani, he could have continued up to 31.05.2003. 7. 6. But the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.10.2002, stating that since the petitioner did not join the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Government Arts College, Tirutani, as directed by the second respondent in the order dated 23.08.2002, he has no right to continue up to 31.05.2003. Had the petitioner joined at Tirutani, he could have continued up to 31.05.2003. 7. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.283/2003 (W.P.No.12498/2007) seeking to quash the order dated 24.10.2002 of the first respondent and for direction to the first and second respondents to pass necessary order of re-appointment so as to enable the petitioner to continue in the fifth respondent/Coaching Centre till 31.05.2003. 8. The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and reiterating the same, which was stated in the impugned order dated 24.10.2002. 9. I have heard the submissions made on either side. 10. The claim of the petitioner is based on the recommendation letter dated 26.08.2002 of the fifth respondent/Coaching Centre to continue his service up to 31.05.2003. The letter dated 26.08.2002 of the fifth respondent, which is enclosed at page-17 of the typed set of papers is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 11. But the second respondent transferred the petitioner to Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Government Arts College, Tirutani, by an order dated 23.08.2002. While the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2002, the claim of the petitioner was to continue him upto the end of the academic year (i.e.) 31.05.2003 in the fifth respondent/Coaching Centre, but the second respondent transferred him to the different place. When the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent for his re-employment from 01.09.2002 to 31.05.2003, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.10.2002, stating that the petitioner should have joined at the transferred place and since he did not join at the transferred place, he could not ask for re-employment in the Coaching Centre. 12. When the petitioner categorically pleaded in the writ petition that the Director of the Coaching Centre recommended for retention in his letter dated 26.08.2002, the respondents denied the same in para-8 of their counter affidavit, in which, it is stated that there was no recommendation from the Coaching Centre for continuing the petitioner in the Coaching Centre. 12. When the petitioner categorically pleaded in the writ petition that the Director of the Coaching Centre recommended for retention in his letter dated 26.08.2002, the respondents denied the same in para-8 of their counter affidavit, in which, it is stated that there was no recommendation from the Coaching Centre for continuing the petitioner in the Coaching Centre. The statement of the respondents in para-8 of their counter affidavit is not correct in view of the letter dated 26.08.2002 of the Director of the Coaching Centre recommending for continuation of the petitioner in the Coaching Centre and the same was extracted as above. 13. Further, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that the recommendation made by the Coaching Centre in the case of one Thiru.V.Rajaram was considered and that he was re-employed in the Coaching Centre. In Grounds-(B), the petitioner averred as follows: "(B) As per the procedure in vogue, on re-appointment (after attaining the age of superannuation) the persons are allowed to continue till the end of the academic year, in the Institution/Centre/College, in which the said persons had been working at the time of reaching superannuation. The 1st respondent, is earlier occasions, had allowed one Selection Grade Lecturers (who had worked in the 5th respondent Coaching Centre) to continue in the same centre till the end of the academic year viz., V.Rajaram. But in the case of the applicant alone, such an order had not been issued." 14. It was replied by the respondents in para-11 of their counter affidavit and the relevant passage is as follows: "11. .. .. In earlier occasion, Thiru.V.Rajaram was sanctioned re-employment only on the recommendation of the Director, All India Civil Services Coaching Centre, Chennai." The above averment of the respondents is also not correct. The petitioner is not treated alike Thiru.V.Rajaram. In the case of Rajaram, a favourable treatment was given, but in the case of the petitioner, a hostile treatment was shown. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 24.10.2002 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. Since the petitioner was retired a long back, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the benefits to the petitioner for the re-employment period from 01.09.2002 to 31.05.2003 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Since the petitioner was retired a long back, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the benefits to the petitioner for the re-employment period from 01.09.2002 to 31.05.2003 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.