Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was employed as Noon Meal Organiser from 1986 to 1993. He went on medical leave for 20 days from 03.02.1993. Thereafter, he did not extend the leave. According to the petitioner, due to his ill health as well as some family problems, he was not able to apply for extension of leave. After recovering from illness and other family problems, he approached the respondent seeking posting order. However, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2001 stating that he could not be given posting order, after six years. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was absent after the expiry of medical leave, no order was passed terminating him from service and neither charge memo was issued nor enquiry was conducted. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent not permitting him to join duty on the ground that six years have lapsed, is not legal and proper. 3. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.5089 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 16.04.2001 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to issue him posting order as Noon Meal Organiser in any one of the existing vacancy at Hosur Block. 4. Notice of motion was ordered by the Tribunal on 09.08.2001 and no interim order was granted. No reply affidavit is filed by the respondents. 5. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.2736 of 2007. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is true that the petitioner did not join duty after expiry of 20 days medical leave and he did not seek for extension of leave. However, as stated by the petitioner, no disciplinary action was initiated against him and no charge memo was issued and no enquiry was conducted. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. However, the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the non-employment period, as he remained absent without any leave / prior permission. In the normal course, I could have remanded the matter to hold enquiry and to pass appropriate orders. Since the petitioner reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, I am not inclined to do the same. 8. In these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. In the normal course, I could have remanded the matter to hold enquiry and to pass appropriate orders. Since the petitioner reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, I am not inclined to do the same. 8. In these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any wages for the period of non-employment up to the dated of his superannuation. However, the period of non-employment up to the date of his superannuation has to be treated as duty period for the purpose of terminal benefits alone. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner, taking into account the non-employment period as duty period, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs.