Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the 2nd respondent's impugned proceedings dated 14.2.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.453/07 Pa, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as Forester till his superannuation and to pay all arrears of salary and other benefits arising thereto, by regularising the services as per fundamental rules with effect from 1.2.2006 onwards and to extend all benefits thereto, both service and monetary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services as Junior Assistant in the year 1976 and he was promoted as Forester in the year 1983. Due to his ill health he was on medical leave between 01.11.2004 and 31.01.2006. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and the leave was sanctioned. On 22.11.2006, the petitioner made an application to go on VRS. In the meantime, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules for his unauthorised absence and a detailed enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. The petitioner has preferred W.P.Nos.12095/2007 and 14778/2007 challenging the Charge Memo as well as the show cause notice. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a common order and the Enquiry Report and the show cause notice were set aside and the petitioner was directed to go on VRS with all benefits, as could be seen from paragraph 16 of the said Common Order, which is extracted below: "16. In the result, both the writ petitions will stand allowed. No costs. The Enquiry Report and the Show cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner including the charge memo will stand set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2006 and treat it as a request for voluntary retirement and then permit him to go on voluntary retirement from the date of notice will all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 3. As the respondents did not comply with the order and the time granted by this court expired, the petitioner made a representation seeking for posting and he was given employment by an order dated 20.12.2011. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 3. As the respondents did not comply with the order and the time granted by this court expired, the petitioner made a representation seeking for posting and he was given employment by an order dated 20.12.2011. After joining the service, the petitioner made a request for promotion and at that time the impugned order dated 14.02.2012 was passed. One of the grounds, as could be seen from the impugned order dated 14.02.2012, was that the order of posting was erroneously issued. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Forest) representing the respondents contended that this court has passed an order setting aside the show cause notice and the charge memo and has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to go on VRS after expiry of 90 days from the date of VRS application. Hence the contention of the petitioner that 90 days time should run from the date of order of this court dated 19.12.2009 in W.P.Nos.12095 and 14778 of 2007 may not be correct. The respondents also submitted that it is true that the petitioner was reinstated and was given posting order and he was working for fifty days. Since the order was erroneously issued, it was recalled and no motive or illegality can be pointed out in the order cancelling the posting. 5. In reply, Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contention and submitted that the petitioner is willing to go on VRS provided the order is given effect to immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of the order dated 19.12.2009. He also contended that the petitioner has worked for five months (re-posting) and for the work rendered by him, he was not paid the wages. 6. Heard both parties. 7. From the order of this court dated 19.12.2009, extracted supra, it is clear that the petitioner should have been relieved from service on the expiry of 90 days period from the date of his VRS application, which was on 06.02.2006. Hence, he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired with effect from May 2006. The petitioner is enttiled to all the benefits up to the date of VRS i.e. on the expiry of 90 days from the date of his VRS application. Hence, he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired with effect from May 2006. The petitioner is enttiled to all the benefits up to the date of VRS i.e. on the expiry of 90 days from the date of his VRS application. I accept the contention of the respondents that there is an erroneous posting order and the petitioner was allowed to continue his services. For the services rendered, whether it is 50 days or five months, the petitioner is entitled to wages and the period will have to be worked out and calculated by the respondents and the wages for the work done after re-posting, till the date of cancellation, will have to be paid, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This court makes it clear that this court has already passed an order directing the respondents to accept the VRS application of the petitioner and pay all the benefits. Since the time has already expired, the monetary benefits arising out of the VRS benefits including the pensionary benefits, will have to be calculated and paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the respondents shall send a communication, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, to the petitioner stating that he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired on the expiry of 90 days from the date of his VRS application. Thereafter, they can avail the time of 90 days to arrive at the monetary benefits to be paid to him. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.