Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in Town Panchayat Department in the year 1962. After several accelerated promotions, he was promoted as Municipal Commissioner Grade – III with effect from 28.05.1990 vide G.O.Ms.No.466, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, from the feeder post of Selection Grade Executive Officer in the Town Panchayat Service. 2. The Municipalities are classified in ascending order as Grade–III, Grade – II, Grade – I, Selection and Special Grade Municipalities. The Municipal Commissioners Grade–III are to be promoted as Municipal Commissioners Grade-II and also to other categories. There are also other feeder posts for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade–III and Grade–II etc. However, no regular panel for promotion to the post of Grade-II Municipal Commissioner was issued since 1989. The other feeder posts namely Superintendents in the office of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration and the Assistant Section Officers of the Secretariat were preferred to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade–II on the basis of working arrangements. This led to irregular appointments to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade–II and also to other categories. 3. While so, the interse seniority list dated 21.03.1995 of Municipal Commissioners Grade–III was issued by the Government. The petitioner ranks at Sl.No.3 in the said seniority list. The petitioner was qualified for regular promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II as per Rules, since he passed all the required departmental tests. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid seniority list, the petitioner was posted as Municipal Commissioner Grade–I at Tambaram, a Grade–I Municipality, by an order dated 12.05.1995. As stated above, it was not a regular promotion and on the other hand, it was a working arrangement and the same was the method adopted to fill the vacancies in all Higher Grade Municipalities. 5. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O.(2D) No.30, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 25.03.1996 posting the petitioner to Alandur Municipality, which is a Selection Grade Municipality. 6. Subsequently, the Government issued another order in G.O.(D) No.268, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.1996 downgrading the petitioner by posting him to Pallavaram Municipality, which is a Grade–I Municipality. 7. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4262 of 1996 questioning the aforesaid downgradation. 6. Subsequently, the Government issued another order in G.O.(D) No.268, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.1996 downgrading the petitioner by posting him to Pallavaram Municipality, which is a Grade–I Municipality. 7. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4262 of 1996 questioning the aforesaid downgradation. According to the petitioner, while he was downgraded, his juniors, who were ineligible to hold the post were posted to Selection Grade Municipalities on 15.07.1996. It is stated that one Mr.S.Ramasamy and Mr.R.Sathiyamurthy were posted to Selection Grade Municipalities, while they were juniors to the petitioner and they did not even pass the requisite departmental tests. 8. While the petitioner was posted to Pallavaram Municipality, which is a Grade–I Municipality, by way of downgradation from Selection Grade Municipality on 03.07.1996, he was again transferred to Pattukkottai, which is also a Grade-I Municipality, by an order dated 27.08.1996, within a period of two months. 9. In the meanwhile, the respondent Government issued the seniority list dated 26.08.1997 of Municipal Commissioners Grade–III, appointed through various sources from 1989 onwards, and the petitioner ranks at Sl.No.1 in the said seniority list. 10. While the petitioner made a representation dated 18.02.1997 to the Government requesting to post him in any of the Selection Grade Municipalities, he was again transferred from Pattukottai Grade–I Municipality to Aruppukkottai Grade-I Municipality, by an order dated 27.08.1997. The petitioner made representations dated 29.11.1997, 04.03.1998 and 24.07.1998 respectively to post him at a Selection Grade Municipality, as he was already posted in the Selection Grade Municipality. 11. As stated above, according to the petitioner, he was unjustly downgraded and the respondent Government again transferred the petitioner from Aruppukkottai Grade–I Municipality to Virudhachalam Grade–I Municipality, by an order dated 08.06.1998. Apart from downgrading and posting him to Grade–I Municipalities, within a short span of time, he was transferred on four occasions. 12. On 28.07.1998, the Tribunal disposed the Original Application in O.A.No.4262 of 1996 questioning G.O.(D) No.268, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.1996 downgrading him from the post of Municipal Commissioner Selection Grade to Municipal Commissioner Grade–I, by directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding his promotion, on merits, within a period of twelve weeks. 13. Without complying with the order dated 28.07.1998 of the Tribunal, the third respondent Commissioner transferred the petitioner from Virudhachalam Grade–I Municipality to Panruti Grade–I Municipality, by an order dated 28.10.1998. 13. Without complying with the order dated 28.07.1998 of the Tribunal, the third respondent Commissioner transferred the petitioner from Virudhachalam Grade–I Municipality to Panruti Grade–I Municipality, by an order dated 28.10.1998. The third respondent also passed another order on the same day i.e., 28.10.1998 informing the petitioner that orders for posting him in a Selection Grade Municipality is awaited from the Government. 14. According to the petitioner, in view of the order dated 28.10.1998 of the third respondent informing him that orders for posting him in a Selection Grade is awaited from the Government, he did not join duty at Panruti. Further, the respondents 3 and 4 have to pass orders as per the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4262 of 1996. The outer time limit of twelve weeks as fixed by the Tribunal came to an end on 19.12.1998 and the respondents 3 and 4 were to pass orders on 20.12.1998. 15. In these circumstances, the Government passed an order dated 23.11.1998, in compliance with the order dated 28.07.1998 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4262 of 1996, declining to post the petitioner in a Selection Grade Municipality on the ground that two disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and in the case of posting him under the working arrangement, the same yardstick that is followed in the case of promotion is being followed and therefore, there is an impediment in posting him in Selection Grade Municipality. 16. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.44 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the order dated 23.11.1998 of the Government declining to post him in the Selection Grade Municipality on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. While admitting the said Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim direction on 06.01.2000 directing the third respondent to issue posting order in any vacancy in any of the Selection Grade Municipality. 17. According to the petitioner, the relevant date for posting him in the Selection Grade Municipality was 25.03.1996 as he was already posted to Alandur Selection Grade Municipality by way of G.O.(2D) No.30, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 25.03.1996. In any event, if 25.03.1996 is not the relevant date, then 03.07.1996 could be the relevant date, as on the said date, he was downgraded and posted to Grade–I Municipality from Selection Grade Municipality by G.O.(D) No.268. 18. In any event, if 25.03.1996 is not the relevant date, then 03.07.1996 could be the relevant date, as on the said date, he was downgraded and posted to Grade–I Municipality from Selection Grade Municipality by G.O.(D) No.268. 18. According to the petitioner, both on 25.03.1996 and 03.07.1996, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him only on 27.11.1996 by issuing a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Another charge memo dated 21.12.1996 was also issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Both the charge memos could not come in the way of posting him in the Selection Grade Municipality, as those charge memos were issued subsequent to 03.07.1996. 19. The Government issued an order in G.O.(1D) No.674, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.12.1998 effecting various transfers. In the said Government Order, one Mr.Panneerselvam, Municipal Commissioner was posted to Panruti Municipality from Kulachal Municipality. However, in respect of the petitioner, no order was issued posting him to any Municipality. Hence, he presumed that he was placed on compulsory wait. 20. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations on 16.04.1999 and 15.09.1999 to the third respondent requesting to give him due postings. 21. While so, the third respondent issued a charge memo dated 27.09.1999 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging that the petitioner was on leave from 25.06.1998 to 23.10.1998 and thereafter he was unauthorisedly absent from 23.10.1998 till the date of issuance of the said charge memo. 22. Since no posting order was given in spite of his representations dated 16.04.1999 and 15.09.1999 referred to above, the petitioner made further representations dated 07.10.1999 and 24.11.1999 to the third respondent to give him early postings. 23. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.45 of 2000 seeking to quash the charge memo dated 27.09.1999. While admitting the said Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim stay of further proceedings, on 06.01.2000. 24. The petitioner made a representation dated 07.01.2000 to post him as a Commissioner in any of the Selection Grade Municipality pursuant to the interim order dated 06.01.2000 granted by the Tribunal in O.A.No.44 of 2000. 25. While admitting the said Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim stay of further proceedings, on 06.01.2000. 24. The petitioner made a representation dated 07.01.2000 to post him as a Commissioner in any of the Selection Grade Municipality pursuant to the interim order dated 06.01.2000 granted by the Tribunal in O.A.No.44 of 2000. 25. When the interim order of the Tribunal was not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt application in C.A.No.110 of 2000 before the Tribunal complaining that the direction issued by the Tribunal on 06.01.2000 in O.A.No.44 of 2000 was deliberately not complied with by the respondents 3 and 4. The Tribunal passed an order on 15.09.2000 in C.A.No.110 of 2000 directing the respondents 3 and 4 to issue appropriate posting orders to the petitioner considering his status as Selection Grade (Senior Grade-II) Municipal Commissioner. 26. While so, contrary to the orders dated 06.01.2000 and 15.09.2000 of the Tribunal referred to above, the Government passed an order dated 19.10.2000 directing the third respondent to post the petitioner as a Commissioner in Grade–II Municipality. In reply to the same, the third respondent sent a D.O. Letter dated 21.10.2000 disagreeing with the aforesaid order dated 19.10.2000 of the Government by pointing out that posting the petitioner in Grade – II Municipality would be a gross injustice to the petitioner and it would be in violation of law. However, the third respondent stated that if the Government feels that it is the appropriate posting, he would be prepared to comply with the same. 27. In these circumstances, the Government passed an order in G.O.(Ms) No.601, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.10.2000 posting the petitioner to Puliangudi, which is Grade–II Municipality. According to the Government, the same was in compliance with the order dated 15.09.2000 passed by the Tribunal in C.A.No.110 of 2000. 28. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.7992 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 29. While so, the third respondent issued an order dated 22.06.2001 posting the petitioner as Municipal Commissioner at Tiruvottriyur, a Selection Grade Municipality. The petitioner joined duty on 25.06.2001 and he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001, that is, within a week, he was retired from service. The petitioner was permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. 30. The respondents have filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. The petitioner joined duty on 25.06.2001 and he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001, that is, within a week, he was retired from service. The petitioner was permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. 30. The respondents have filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 31. On abolition of Tribunal, all the matters stood transferred to this Court and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.776, 777 and 778 of 2006. 32. Heard both sides. 33. The petitioner was promoted as Municipal Commissioner Grade–III with effect from 28.05.1990, by G.O.Ms.No.466, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Government. The Municipalities are classified in ascending order as Grade–III, Grade– II, Grade–I, Selection and Special Grade Municipalities and the Commissioners posted in those Municipalities are designated as Municipal Commissioners Grade–III, Grade–II, Grade-I, Selection Grade (Senior Grade–II) and Special Grade (Senior Grade–I) respectively. The petitioner was posted to Grade–I Municipality at Tambaram on 12.05.1995. 34. The respondent Government issued an order in G.O.(2D) No.30 posting the petitioner to Alandur, a Selection Grade Municipality. The fourth respondent issued another order in G.O.(D) No.268 downgrading him and posting him to Pallavaram Municipality, which is a Grade–I Municipality. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4262 of 1996. The Tribunal disposed the said Original Application on 28.07.1998 by directing the respondents 3 and 4 to dispose the petitioner's representation seeking posting him as Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality on merits within a period of twelve weeks. In these circumstances, the Government passed the impugned order dated 23.11.1998 declining the request of the petitioner for posting him as Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality. In this regard, the order dated 23.11.1998 of the Government is extracted hereunder: "Letter No.36717/ME.1/96-11, dated 23.11.1998 From Tmt.S.Malathi, I.A.S. Secretary to Government To ThiruT.V.Palani Municipal Commissioner (on leave) 11, Panchayat Colony, Radhanagar,Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044. (Through the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai – 5.) Sir, Sub: Establishment – Tamil Nadu Municipal Commissioners Subordinate Service – Thiru T.V.Palani, Municipal Commissioner (on leave) – Posting as Municipal Commissioner, Senior Grade – II – Representation. Ref:1. Your representation dated 24.7.1998 2. From Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Judgment in O.A.No.4262/96, dated 28.7.98. 3. From the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Lr.No.4418/C1/98, dated 18.8.1998 and 8.9.1998. Ref:1. Your representation dated 24.7.1998 2. From Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Judgment in O.A.No.4262/96, dated 28.7.98. 3. From the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Lr.No.4418/C1/98, dated 18.8.1998 and 8.9.1998. - - - - I am directed to state that as directed by the Honourable Tribunal in the Judgment first cited, the Government considered your representation dated 24.7.1998 for posting you at Senior Grade-II Municipal Commissioner. It is reported that the Commissioner of Municipal Administration has initiated disciplinary proceedings against you for certain irregularities alleged to be committed by you, while you were working as Municipal Commissioner at Alandur and Tambaram Municipalities. Your averment that the disciplinary case pending against you, will not be a bar to your being posted as Senior Grade-II Commissioner is not correct, because, although these postings are done on working arrangement basis, the procedure followed is exactly as for promotion. The working arrangement system is being followed, pending regularisation of services of Municipal Commissioner. Therefore your name was not considered for elevation to the post at Senior Grade–II Municipality. Only after the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings your case can be considered for this post. Yours faithfully, Sd/- for Secretary to Government" 35. The only reason for declining the request of the petitioner to post him as a Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality is that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. It is true that the charge memo dated 27.11.1996 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and another charge memo dated 21.12.1996 were pending against the petitioner when the order dated 23.11.1998 was passed. But, Government was not correct in relying on those charge memos to decline posting as Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality. The claim of the petitioner for posting him in Selection Grade Municipality is based on the earlier Government Order in G.O.(RT) No.164, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 15.07.1996, by which, ineligible persons/ juniors to the petitioner were posted as Commissioners in Selection Grade Municipalities. 36. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should not have been downgraded by the third respondent by G.O.(D) No.268, while his juniors were posted as Commissioners in Selection Grade Municipalities by G.O.(RT) No.164, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 15.07.1996. According to the petitioner, the two charge memos were issued subsequent to G.O.(2D) No.30, G.O.(D) No.268 and G.O.(RT) No.164 dated 25.03.1996, 03.07.1996 and 15.07.1996 respectively. According to the petitioner, the two charge memos were issued subsequent to G.O.(2D) No.30, G.O.(D) No.268 and G.O.(RT) No.164 dated 25.03.1996, 03.07.1996 and 15.07.1996 respectively. Apart from the charge memos, there was no other impediment for giving posting to him as Commissioner in the Selection Grade Municipality. There is no reason given for downgrading him vide G.O.(D) No.268. Since the charge memos were issued subsequent to his posting as Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality in March 1996, reliance placed on the charge memos in the order dated 23.11.1998 for declining the posting as Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality has no substance. 37. The petitioner was posted as Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality on 25.03.1996 vide G.O.(2D) No.30. He ranks at Sl.No.3 in the interse seniority list dated 21.03.1995 of Municipal Commissioners Grade–III and ranks at Sl.No.1 in the seniority list dated 26.08.1997 of Municipal Commissioners Grade–III in the Tamil Nadu Municipal Commissioners Subordinate Service from 1989 onwards. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the order dated 23.11.1998 of the Government declining to post him in the Selection Grade Municipality on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, is not correct and legal and the same is liable to be set aside. 38. Apart from downgrading the petitioner by posting him in Grade–I Municipality on 03.07.1996, he was frequently transferred from one Grade–I Municipality to another Grade-I Municipality. That is, on 03.07.1996, he was posted to Pallavaram; on 27.08.1996, he was transferred to Pattukottai; on 27.08.1997 he was again transferred to Aruppukottai; on 08.06.1998 he was further transferred to Virudhachalam and lastly, he was transferred to Panruti on 28.10.1998. Admittedly, all the aforesaid Municipalities are Grade–I Municipalities. 39. The petitioner applied for earned leave for sixty days from 24.06.1998 to 22.10.1998. By an order dated 06.03.2008 of the third respondent, the leave period from 25.06.1998 to 22.10.1998 was reguarlised as earned leave and by another order dated 02.07.2008, the leave on 24.06.1998 was treated as earned leave and the same was also regularised. 40. In these circumstances, a charge memo dated 27.09.1999 was issued alleging that the petitioner was on leave from 25.06.1998 to 22.10.1998 and that he unauthorisedly absented himself from 23.10.1998 till the issuance of the charge memo. 40. In these circumstances, a charge memo dated 27.09.1999 was issued alleging that the petitioner was on leave from 25.06.1998 to 22.10.1998 and that he unauthorisedly absented himself from 23.10.1998 till the issuance of the charge memo. The charge that he was on leave from 25.06.1998 to 22.10.1998 has no substance, particularly in view of the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2008 granting earned leave for 120 days from 25.06.1998 to 22.10.1998. The other allegation is that he was authorisedly absent from 23.10.1998. The crux of the allegation is that he failed to join duty at Panruti after the expiry of the earned leave. But I have already held that the respondents are not correct in posting him in Grade–I Municipalities. Downgrading and posting the petitioner to Grade–I Municipalities from July 1996 is held as bad and hence, he could not be blamed in the said circumstances. 41. Furthermore, the Tribunal, by an order dated 28.07.1998 in O.A.No.4262 of 1996, directed the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation for posting him as Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality, while disposing the Original Application questioning G.O.(D) No.268 downgrading the petitioner to Grade–I Municipality. The Tribunal granted twelve weeks time to dispose the petitioner's representation and the time limit fixed by the Tribunal came to an end on 19.12.1998. In these circumstances, the third respondent, while transferring the petitioner to Panruti Municipality by an order dated 28.10.1998, also passed another order on the same day viz., 28.10.1998 informing the petitioner that orders for posting him in Selection Grade Municipality is awaited from the Government. In these circumstances, the petitioner also expressed his desire vide his letter dated 04.11.1998 to await the order of the Government. Thereafter, the Government passed the order dated 23.11.1998 in compliance with the order dated 28.07.1998 passed in O.A.No.4262 of 1996 declining to post him in Selection Grade Municipality. 42. In my view, there is no substance in making allegation that the petitioner remained absent from 23.10.1998 onwards without joining at Grade-I Municipality. Furthermore, the petitioner also retired from service on 30.06.2001. Normally this Court could not interfere with the charge memo issued by the authorities and only in exceptional cases and where there is no jurisdiction and the power was exercised malafide, this Court could interfere with the charge memos. 43. Furthermore, the petitioner also retired from service on 30.06.2001. Normally this Court could not interfere with the charge memo issued by the authorities and only in exceptional cases and where there is no jurisdiction and the power was exercised malafide, this Court could interfere with the charge memos. 43. The aforesaid narration of facts would make it clear that it is one of the rarest of rare cases, wherein charge memos could be interfered. The impugned charge memo dated 27.09.1999 is without jurisdiction, as the petitioner was alleged to have absented from duty by not joining in Grade–I Municipality, when the respondents are not justified in posting him in Grade-I Municipality. In fact, the Tribunal also passed an interim order on 06.01.2000 in O.A.No.44 of 2000 directing the third respondent to post the petitioner in any of the Selection Grade Municipality. The same was not complied with. Hence, he filed contempt application in C.A.No.110 of 2000. The Tribunal passed another order dated 15.09.2000 in C.A.No.110 of 2000 to post him in any of the Selection Grade Municipality. Those orders attained finality. Taking into account those facts and also the fact that the order dated 23.11.1998 of the Government declining to post the petitioner in Selection Grade Municipality being quashed, the impugned charge memo dated 27.09.1999 is liable to be quashed. In spite of the orders dated 06.01.2000 and 15.09.2000 of the Tribunal referred to above, the Government passed the order dated 19.10.2000 posing the petitioner to Grade–II Municipality. That is, when the petitioner agitating for posting him in Selection Grade Municipality from Grade–I Municipality, he was still downgraded from Grade–I Municipality to Grade–II Municipality. In fact, the third respondent also sent a D.O. Letter dated 21.10.2000 regarding his dissent relating to posting the petitioner as Grade-II Municipal Commissioner. The said D.O.Letter dated 21.10.2000 of the third respondent Commissioner is extracted hereunder: "Copy of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration's D.O.letter No.930/2000/C1, dated 21.10.2000 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai – 9. Sub: C.A.No.110/2000 and M.A.No.4206/2000 in O.A.No.44/2000 filed by Thiru.T.V.Palani, Municipal Commissioner – Direction of TNAT, dated 6.1.2000 and 15.9.2000 – Postings to be given – Regarding. Ref: 1. Honourable Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal's order in O.A.No.110/2000 in O.A.No.44/2000, dated 15.9.2000. 2. Your D.O.Letter No.996/ME(1)/2000-7, dated 22.9.2000 3. My D.O.Letter No.930/2000/C1, dated 5.10.2000 4. Deputy Secretary's D.O.Letter No.996/MEI(1)/2000-8, MA & WS Department, dated 11.10.2000 5. Ref: 1. Honourable Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal's order in O.A.No.110/2000 in O.A.No.44/2000, dated 15.9.2000. 2. Your D.O.Letter No.996/ME(1)/2000-7, dated 22.9.2000 3. My D.O.Letter No.930/2000/C1, dated 5.10.2000 4. Deputy Secretary's D.O.Letter No.996/MEI(1)/2000-8, MA & WS Department, dated 11.10.2000 5. My D.O.Letter No.930/2000/C1, dated 17.10.2000 6. Your D.O.Letter No.996/MEI(1)/2000-9, dated 19.10.2000 - - - - - Please refer to your D.O. Letter 6th cited. 1) In the letter cited 6th, you have requested me to issue posting orders to Thiru T.V.Palani as Municipal Commissioner, Grade – II. 2) In the letter 2nd cited, you have directed me to give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani based on the Honourable Tribunal's order. In my letter 3rd cited, I have asked for Government direction regarding the specific given to which he was to be posted, since the Honourable Tribunal's order to give appropriate postings to Thiru. T.V.Palani considering his present status as Grade-II Municipal Commissioner. In the Government letter 4th cited, it has been stated that nothing to add further and asked me to give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani as per the Honourable Tribunal's order. 3) In my letter 5th cited, I have made it clear that the appropriate order in the case of Thiru T.V.Palani considering his present Grade is to post him in the Selection Grade Municipality on working arrangement basis.Now, you have given direction in response to my letter to give him postings as Municipal Commissioner, Grade – II. 4) In the meanwhile on 17.10.2000 night you have also spoken to me over phone and insisted that I should give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani as per Honourable Tribunal's order. Even during that time, I made it clear that I have sent a letter requesting the Government to give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani in the Selection Grade Municipality on working arrangement basis and you have asked me to get legal opinion and act accordingly. 5) Immediately I have sent a letter to the Senior Standing Counsel asking his specific legal opinion since in his letter written to you he had mentioned that Thiru. T.V.Palani was eligible to be posted in Selection Grade Municipality. Knowing very well the contents of the Senior Standing Counsel's letter, you have asked me to get the legal opinion from him. While acting on your advice, I received your letter asking me to give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani as Grade – II Municipal Commissioner. T.V.Palani was eligible to be posted in Selection Grade Municipality. Knowing very well the contents of the Senior Standing Counsel's letter, you have asked me to get the legal opinion from him. While acting on your advice, I received your letter asking me to give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani as Grade – II Municipal Commissioner. I was taken by surprise by the change in your stand within 24 hours. 6) As I have stated in my earlier letters, Thiru. T.V.Palani was working on working arrangement basis as Grade-I Municipal Commissioner at that time he went on leave and it would be great injustice to any individual to downgrade to Grade–II unless as a measure of punishment. 7) Downgrading the grade of an officer from the existing level for no fault of him will be against the natural justice and as a firm believer of Rule of Law, I feel that we would be committing blatant violation of law, if we post him as Municipal Commissioner, Grade–II. 8) Also as per the existing rules, downgrading or upgrading of an individual from one grade to another even on working arrangement has to be done by the Government only. Even in the case of Thiru.T.V.Palani orders downgrading from Selection Grade to First Grade was issued by Government only in G.O.No.268, MA & WS Department, dated 3.7.96. 9) Further in your letter 6th cited, you have stated that granting an order of appointment as Commissioner, Selection Grade, would be conceding the prayer of the applicant in O.A.No.44/2000 which is yet to be heard and decided by the Honourable Tribunal. Implementing the interim order, as being done in many cases, does not amount to conceding the applicant's prayer. The finality of the case will alone confer permanent entitlement. It is a well established practice to give effect to the interim order, during the pendency of the litigation and it does not amount to conceding to any of the demands in the affidavit of the petitioner. 10) If you still feel that he should be given posting as Grade–II Municipal Commissioner, I request you to issue a Government order downgrading him from First Grade Municipal Commissioner, then I can give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani in any one of the vacancies as Grade–II Municipal Commissioner. 10) If you still feel that he should be given posting as Grade–II Municipal Commissioner, I request you to issue a Government order downgrading him from First Grade Municipal Commissioner, then I can give postings to Thiru.T.V.Palani in any one of the vacancies as Grade–II Municipal Commissioner. 11) Finally, I would like to state that writing letter or giving direction, which cannot be implemented legally, may not absolve you from the responsibility of implementing the Honourable Tribunal's order and legal consequences arising out of non-implementation of the order. Yours sincerely, Sd/- XXXX Commissioner of Municipal Administration" 44. In the aforesaid letter, the third respondent Commissioner used very harsh words and further described that the great injustice was meted out to the petitioner by downgrading him from Grade–I to Grade–II Municipal Commissioner. He recommended for posting him in Selection Grade Municipality. However, the Government passed the order in G.O. No.601, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.10.2000 posting the petitioner to Puliankudi, a Grade–II Municipality. The same was questioned by the petitioner in O.A.No.7992 of 2000 (W.P.No.777 of 2006). Since I have already held that the order dated 23.11.1998 of the Government declining to post the petitioner in Selection Grade Municipality is liable to be quashed, for the same reasons, the impugned order dated 23.10.2000 also is liable to be quashed. 45. Furthermore, the aforesaid D.O. Letter dated 21.10.2000 of the third respondent supports the case of the petitioner. In fact, there is no answer for the respondents for the D.O. Letter dated 21.10.2000 of the third respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted to Thiruvottriyur, a Selection Grade Municipality on 22.06.2001 and he joined duty on 25.06.2001. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001 and retired from service, within a week. The order dated 22.06.2001 posting him in Selection Grade Municipality also vindicated the stand of the petitioner. The said order also makes it clear that the earlier orders dated 23.11.1998 and 23.10.2000 of the Government are bad. 46. For the aforesaid reasons, all the impugned orders are quashed. Since I have already held that the downgradation of the petitioner from Selection Grade Municipality to Grade–I Municipalities, is bad and illegal, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as if he continued as a Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality from March 1996 itself, as per G.O.(2D) No.30. 46. For the aforesaid reasons, all the impugned orders are quashed. Since I have already held that the downgradation of the petitioner from Selection Grade Municipality to Grade–I Municipalities, is bad and illegal, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as if he continued as a Commissioner in Selection Grade Municipality from March 1996 itself, as per G.O.(2D) No.30. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits payable to the Commissioner of Selection Grade Municipality from 03.07.1996 to 25.06.2001. The respondents are directed to settle the benefits payable to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 47. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs.