JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Appellant/petitioner has preferred the instant writ appeal against the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the Learned single Judge in W.P. No.16076 of 2008. 2. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner, Learned single Judge has incorrectly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant/writ petitioner inter-alia holding that the Appellant/petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the impugned order of the first respondent, in and by which, the Government has rejected his representation dated 14.12.2007 claiming the Encashment of Leave on Retirement and also for a consequential direction for settling the claim for remaining Earned Leave for 83 days with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it has fallen due. 3. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner strenuously contended that the service rendered by the Appellant/petitioner with the first respondent/Government is a separate and distinct service and as a matter of fact, the same cannot be clubbed together. 4. The stand taken by the Appellant/petitioner is that the Learned single Judge has failed to consider that Clause 3(d) of G.O.Ms.No.1921 Agriculture (MP.I) Department (hereinafter referred to as "GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983") dated 8.11.1983 does not speak of adjusting of 50% of Earned Leave retained by the first respondent out of the total accumulation of Earned Leave for the service rendered by the Appellant/petitioner till 31.1.1981 with the first respondent. 5. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner contends that Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 only confers a benefit on the first respondent, inasmuch as it postpones the payment of remaining 50% of Earned Leave wages on being absorbed in the second respondent Federation. 6. The plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/petitioner is that the Learned single Judge has incorrectly placed reliance upon the Circular bearing Ref.No.20320/Accts.I-1/91 dated 4.1.1993, when the same has been issued as an interim arrangement for the settlement of terminal benefits to those who have already retired/deceased during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition filed by the employees of the first respondent challenging GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 and the same cannot be relied upon after the disposal of the Special Leave Petition. 7. The main submission of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner is that the Circular bearing Ref.No.20320/Accts.I-1/91 dated 4.1.1993 cannot over ride the GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983. 8. 7. The main submission of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner is that the Circular bearing Ref.No.20320/Accts.I-1/91 dated 4.1.1993 cannot over ride the GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983. 8. It is the categorical plea of the Appellant/petitioner that the Learned single Judge should have held that there are no other Rules in the second respondent/Federation to adjust the Earned Leave payable for the service rendered by the Appellant/petitioner with the first respondent. 9. Yet another submission made by the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner is that the Learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, in paragraph 11, has referred to Clause 3(f) of the GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 and has not taken into account Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, which is meant to advance the object of the Government Order in GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, which clearly demarcates the service rendered by the Appellant/ petitioner with the first respondent than to the service rendered with the second respondent. 10. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner that the Learned single Judge should have held that for the service rendered in the second respondent/Federation, the Appellant/petitioner is entitled to total Encashment of 240 days of Earned Leave, which was accumulated in his favour as on the date of his retirement. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/Appellant joined the services of the Dairy Development Department on 1.8.1969 as Office Assistant. Initially, an independent Government undertaking was formed in the name and style of Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Limited. The Appellant/petitioner was sent on deputation on 1.7.1972 to the aforesaid Corporation. The Government of Tamil Nadu subsequently took a policy decision to convert the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Limited as Co-operative Federation. The Appellant/petitioner and other employees like him were transferred on deputation to the second respondent/Federation. 12. It is not out of place for this Court to point out that the Government issued GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 as regards absorption in the second respondent-Federation. In the said G.O., it has been specifically agreed that after absorption in the services of the second respondent/Federation, the accumulation of the Earned Leave wages in the Government service will be paid as follows:- "3(d) Earned Leave – The employee will be paid by Government cash equivalent of 50 percent of the quantum of Earned Leave at his credit as on the date of absorption. The balance of credit will be transferred to the accounts of the individual under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation with full Leave liability thereof being paid to the undertaking by Government to meet the Leave salary payable to the employees absorbed in the undertaking." 13. The Appellant/petitioner has exercised his option to become the employee of the second respondent/Federation in pursuance of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983. The option has been accepted by the second respondent on 5.6.1991 with retrospective effect from 1.2.1981. He has to his credit 166 days of Earned Leave as on 31.1.1981 for the services rendered by him in the Dairy Development Department relating to the period from 1.8.1969 to 31.1.1981. As per GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, he is entitled to get credit of 50% of the Leave to his account of the second respondent/Federation as on 1.2.1981 as an opening balance. The same will have to be paid by the second respondent/Federation to the Appellant/petitioner on the date of his superannuation, by taking into consideration the accumulated Leave for the services rendered in the second respondent/Federation from 1.2.1981 to 31.5.2007. 14. The Appellant/petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2007. He was allowed to retire as an employee of the second respondent/Federation. According to him, he had more than 240 days of Earned Leave for the service rendered by him with the second respondent/Federation on the date of his retirement. 15. The case of the Appellant/petitioner is that the second respondent/Federation had not made payment of the maximum admissible 240 days of Earned Leave credited to his account. Indeed, it only made payment for 157 days of Earned Leave after deducting the 83 days of Earned Leave, which was retained by the Dairy Development Department as on 31.1.1981, in terms of the Government Order referred to earlier. 16. The Appellant/petitioner, after retirement, made a representation to the Deputy General Manager of the second respondent/Federation on 15.6.2007, since he is the sanctioning Authority to release the Earned Leave wages in terms of the Government Order referred to above or to inform him assigning actual reasons for not sanctioning the Encashment of 83 days of Earned Leave. However, the Deputy General Manager of the second respondent/Federation, in his reply dated 21.11.2007, after concurring with the second respondent, mentioned that the Earned Leave Encashment was sanctioned as per the Head Office Circular ref.No.20320/Accts.1-1/91 dated 4.1.1993. 17. However, the Deputy General Manager of the second respondent/Federation, in his reply dated 21.11.2007, after concurring with the second respondent, mentioned that the Earned Leave Encashment was sanctioned as per the Head Office Circular ref.No.20320/Accts.1-1/91 dated 4.1.1993. 17. Moreover, the Circular dated 4.1.1993 referred to above passed by the second respondent is not applicable to the Appellant/petitioner, since it was passed for a different purpose and the same was passed only subject to the Special Leave Petition filed by some employees, who had challenged their absorption in the second respondent, by challenging the aforesaid Government Order. The Appellant/petitioner made a representation dated 14.12.2007 to the first respondent by means of an appeal setting out all the factual details for his consideration and requested the first respondent to give direction to the second respondent to pay the Earned Leave wages in terms of Government Order, but no reply was received by him. Thereafter, he issued a lawyer's notice dated 17.2.2008, wherein he sought for similar directions. Even for his Lawyer's notice, no reply was forthcoming. Thereupon, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No.9059 of 2008 for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of his representation in the form of appeal dated 14.12.2007 and this Court directed the first respondent to dispose of his appeal in the form of representation on merits and in accordance with law. 18. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner, the first respondent, instead of considering his appeal on merits and in accordance with law, had merely called for remarks from the second respondent. According to him, he was sanctioned Earned Leave for 157 days by following the procedures adopted earlier in respect of such Dairy Development Department employees. It was also stated that already Encashment of Earned Leave for 83 days being 50% of the total credit of Earned Leave stood as on 31.1.1981 was sanctioned as per the terms in GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983. The case of the petitioner is that the first Respondent had not considered his claim in real and proper perspective as per the terms of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983. 19. The case of the petitioner is that the first Respondent had not considered his claim in real and proper perspective as per the terms of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983. 19. The second respondent, in the counter filed by him in the writ petition, had taken a stand that the petitioner was informed that as the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development and the second respondent had already sanctioned Encashment of Earned Leave for 83 days and privileged Leave for 157 days respectively, total Encashment allowed to the petitioner being 240 days, no further orders were required. Moreover, the balance 83 days of Earned Leave at his credit as on 1.2.1981 was taken as opening balance to the credit of the petitioner's Leave account in the Federation and his Leave account was recast. Finally, Encashment for 157 days of privilege Leave was made to the petitioner so that the total Encashment comes to the maximum limit of 240 days. 20. Also a plea was taken that the second respondent/TCMPF is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and hence the Federation is not an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. 21. That apart, the second respondent had pleaded that the Appellant/petitioner was initially an employee of the Dairy Development Department and later worked in the erstwhile TNDDC on deputation from 1.7.1972. He had opted to be permanently absorbed in the Federation with effect from 1.2.1981 as per the terms and conditions contained in GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 and the same was accepted. Based on the GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, option was called for from the Appellant/petitioner along with others to exercise his option either for permanent absorption in the second respondent/Federation or for reversion to his parent department (DDD). The option exercised by the Appellant/petitioner to absorb him permanently in the second respondent/Federation was accepted vide proceedings No.18060/Pers.Estt.5/84-10 dated 5.6.1991 as per the resolution dated 15.4.1991 of the Board of TCMPF. 22. The Appellant/petitioner was informed vide reference No.20088/B5/2006 dated 22.5.2007 that he had 166 days of EL at his credit as on 31.1.1981, out of which 83 days of EL (i.e.50%) would be settled to him by the CMPⅅ in terms of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 and the balance 83 days (the other 50%) be transferred to the Federation for further accounting. The Appellant/petitioner was informed vide reference No.20088/B5/2006 dated 22.5.2007 that he had 166 days of EL at his credit as on 31.1.1981, out of which 83 days of EL (i.e.50%) would be settled to him by the CMPⅅ in terms of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 and the balance 83 days (the other 50%) be transferred to the Federation for further accounting. In terms of Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, the fifty percent of the Leave i.e.83 days, which was transferred by the DDD to the accounts of the individual in the Federation was taken as opening balance as on 1.2.1981 and the Leave account of the petitioner recasted in the Federation from 1.2.1981 to 31.5.2007. Accordingly, he was sanctioned 83 days of Earned Leave Encashment by CMP & DD vide reference No.20088/ B5/2006-2 dated 13.2.2008 and the remaining 157 days was encashed by the Federation and the total Leave Encashment on retirement being 240 days as per G.O.Ms.No.999 dated 30.10.1987, the same was implemented in the Federation. 23. On the date of retirement of the Appellant/petitioner, he had 240 days of EL in his account, which was accumulated and calculated as per the Rules, which included 50% of the EL viz. 83 days transferred from DDD. He was sanctioned 83 days of EL Encashment by CMP & DD vide reference dated 13.2.2008 and Encashment for the remaining 157 days of PL was made by the Federation. The total Leave Encashment on retirement being 240 days as per G.O.Ms.No.999 dated 30.10.1987, which was implemented in the Federation. As on 1.2.1981, the date from which he was permanently absorbed in the Federation, though he was a selection grade OA in his parent department, he was officiating as Assistant in the Federation. Moreover, considering his service in TNDDC/TCMPF in the post of Assistant, he was promoted as Milk Marketing Officer with effect from 22.5.2000. Therefore, the Appellant/petitioner could not claim for Encashment of 240 days each in the DDD and in the Federation, which would be against G.O.Ms.No.999 P&AR Department dated 30.10.1987. 24. Finally, it was contended on behalf of the second respondent that the Encashment of Earned Leave and privilege Leave entitled to him has already been made in accordance with the directions given in GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, G.O.Ms.No.431 AH&F (MP.I) Dept. dated 31.12.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.999 P&AR Dept. dated 30.10.1987. 24. Finally, it was contended on behalf of the second respondent that the Encashment of Earned Leave and privilege Leave entitled to him has already been made in accordance with the directions given in GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, G.O.Ms.No.431 AH&F (MP.I) Dept. dated 31.12.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.999 P&AR Dept. dated 30.10.1987. Hence, there were no deviations of procedure and illegal practice and no dues are to be settled to him as on date. 25. GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 deals with the permanent absorption of Government Servants in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation. Clause 3(d) of the said G.O. deals with Earned Leave referred to above. 26. G.O. Ms.No.431 Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (MP.I) Department dated 31.12.1992 deals with the grant of terminal benefits to the retired employees based on the interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.14319-27/92. 27. In the proceedings in reference No.20320/Accts.1-1/91 dated 4.1.1993 under the caption "Encashment of Leave" it is stated as under:- "Encashment OF Leave The actual Earned Leave at their credit as on 3.1.81 computed in Government pattern shall be arrived. The employee will be paid by Govt., in cash for the 50% of the quantum of E.L. at their credit as on 1.2.81. The Federation shall have the balance 50% of the quantum of E.L. as on 31.1.81 as Opening Balance in the Leave account of the respective employee. From 1.2.81 till the date of retirement/death of the employee, the Leave account shall be computed/recast as per rules/regulations of the Federation for the duty rendered by them in Federation. This Leave so computed has to be added to the Opening Balance. While computing/recasting the Leave account from 1.2.81, the date of commencement of duty for this purpose is to be taken as 1.2.81 and the question of period of probation does not arise. The total Leave actually availed by them under Federation service from 1.2.81 has to be deducted from the Leave so computed and the actual Leave at credit as on the date of retirement/death shall be arrived at. They are eligible to draw the Encashment of the balance Leave at their credit. The P.L. at credit as on the date of retirement/death, so calculated/arrived at plus the 50% of the E.L. retained by Government should not exceed the maximum limit of 240 days as per rules." 28. They are eligible to draw the Encashment of the balance Leave at their credit. The P.L. at credit as on the date of retirement/death, so calculated/arrived at plus the 50% of the E.L. retained by Government should not exceed the maximum limit of 240 days as per rules." 28. It is evident from G.O.Ms.No.999 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department dated 30.10.1987 that the Government have issued orders with regard to Encashment of Earned Leave upto 240 days and has permitted the credit in his account and Encashment. The effect of the said G.O. is that the existing maximum limit of 180 days on accumulation of Earned Leave provided in Rule 8 has been enhanced to 240 days. 29. In the present case on hand, Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 clearly enjoins that the employees will be paid cash equivalent of 50% of the quantum of Earned Leave at his credit as on the date of absorption. Further, the balance of credit will be transferred to the accounts of the individual under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation with full Leave liability thereof being paid to the undertaking by Government to meet the Leave salary payable to the employees absorbed in the undertaking. 30. Accordingly, the Appellant/petitioner is entitled to be paid his Leave salary, which is payable to him absorbing him in the undertaking/Federation. However, the Learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant/petitioner, placed reliance on Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983. Though much reliance was placed on behalf of the second respondent/Federation in regard to G.O.Ms.No.431 Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (MP.I) Department dated 31.12.1992, the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Limited in reference No.20320/Accts.1-1/91 dated 4.1.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.999 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department dated 30.10.1987, it is to be pointed out that Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, which refers to the balance of credit of Earned Leave that was to be transferred to the credit of individual under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation with Leave liability thereof being paid to the undertaking by the Government, was not amended or superseded by any of the subsequent Government Orders like G.O.Ms.No.999 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department dated 30.10.1987. 31. 31. That apart, placing reliance on the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited dated 4.1.1993 pertaining to the Encashment of Leave, would not in any way enure to the benefit of the second respondent or heighten its case for the simple reason that the said proceedings could not, in our opinion, supresede GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, which speaks of Earned Leave salary being paid to the Government Servants who were absorbed in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation. To put it succinctly, on going through the spirit and tenor of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, it is very clear that the said GO refers to the Government servants and not to those employees in the Federation. As on date, GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 is not superseded, modified, annulled. Therefore, it still holds the field. 32. When Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 refers to the full Leave liability of the persons being absorbed in the Federation being paid the Leave salary, then the ingredients of Clause 3(f) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 would not come to the aid or rescue of the second respondent/Federation, in our considered view. Also, GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 did not in any way enjoins adjustment of 50% of the Earned Leave retained by the first respondent out of total accumulation of Earned Leave for the service rendered by the Appellant/petitioner upto 31.1.1981 with the first respondent. Moreover, Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 showers benefits on the first respondent inasmuch as it only postponed the payment of 50% of Earned Leave wages on being absorbed in the second respondent/Federation. The service of the Appellant/petitioner with the first respondent was a separate and a distinct one and it was treated like that by the Government as per GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983 for pension and other benefits. It could not in any way be treated as a composite service by the second respondent/Federation only for the purpose of calculating the Earned Leave wages. 33. It could not in any way be treated as a composite service by the second respondent/Federation only for the purpose of calculating the Earned Leave wages. 33. In regard to the plea raised on behalf of the second respondent/Federation that the writ petition filed by the Appellant/writ petitioner is, per se, not maintainable, it is to be pertinently pointed out that when a statutory duty is imposed on a public official or an official body like the second respondent/Federation for enforcement of statutory duties and carrying out the obligations in regard to the claim of Earned Leave Encashment, certainly, a writ of mandamus could be issued. As such, it is held by this Court that the present writ petition is per se maintainable in law. 34. Viewing from any angle, in view of the fact that Clause 3(d) of GO 1921 dt.8.11.1983, which speaks of Earned Leave and the Leave salary payable to the employees absorbed in the undertaking, squarely applies to the case of the Appellant/petitioner, we are of the considered view that the contra view taken by the Learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition in W.P. No.16076 of 2008 by passing order dated 10.11.2010 is not correct in the eye of law. Consequently, the said order passed by the Learned single Judge is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed to prevent an aberration of Justice. Four weeks time is granted to the respondents for settling the claim of the Appellant/petitioner with regard to Earned Leave wages with interest @ 8% per annum from the date it has fallen due till the date of realisation. However, there shall be no order as to costs.