JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 05.06.1996 in O.A.No.3405 of 1993 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai within a stipulated time. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 15.05.1963 and subsequently, promoted as Assistant on 08.04.1974. When a junior, by name, V.Balakrishnan was getting more pay than the petitioner, he filed Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal along with the other affected persons in O.A.No.305 of 1993. In the said original application, the Tribunal passed an order on 05.06.1996, directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior Manimaran in the post of Assistant with effect from 10.01.1977 and pay all the arrears that would accrue out of the said order within two months. Insofar as the recovery made against the petitioner is concerned, the same was set aside and the respondents therein were directed to refund the amount to the petitioner. Inspite of the said order, having been passed by the tribunal as early as on 05.06.1996, the respondents have not complied with the said order immediately. Therefore, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before the Tribunal in C.A.No.244 of 1998. In the said contempt petition, an order came to be passed on 19.09.2002 directing the respondents to comply with the order immediately. Even thereafter, the order passed by the Tribunal has not been complied with. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner filed O.A.No.3405 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was ordered on 05.06.1996. The counter further proceeded to refer about the claim made by the petitioner seeking for fixation of his pay on par with his junior and the rejection of the said request made by the Government. The counter affidavit of the third respondent, however, does not refer anything about the subsequent development taken place in pursuant to the order passed in O.A.No.3405 of 1993 dated 05.06.1996. Hence it is to be seen as to whether the respondents have complied with the order made in O.A.No.3405 of 1993 dated 05.06.1996 or not. 4. The counter affidavit of the third respondent, however, does not refer anything about the subsequent development taken place in pursuant to the order passed in O.A.No.3405 of 1993 dated 05.06.1996. Hence it is to be seen as to whether the respondents have complied with the order made in O.A.No.3405 of 1993 dated 05.06.1996 or not. 4. The counter affidavit of the third respondent does not say anything about the compliance of the said order. On the other hand, it refers about the earlier proceedings with regard to the petitioner's request and the rejection by the Government seeking for fixing his pay on par with his junior. However, subsequently, when an order is made in O.A.No.3405 of 1993 dated 05.06.1996 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior with effect from 10.01.1977 and to pay all the arrears, I fail to understand as to how the respondents are justified in not complying with the said order all these years thereby, dragging the petitioner to approach this Court to file this writ petition. It is seen that the petitioner is a senior citizen, now, aged about 69 years. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to implement the order made in O.A.No.3405 of 1993 dated 05.06.1996 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.