Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellants, as well as Mr. G.Thalaimutharasu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 03.02.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.914 of 2010. 3. The petitioner in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD).No.914 of 2010, is the respondent in the present Writ Appeal. The respondent had filed the Writ Petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order of the first appellant herein, dated 30.08.2005, insofar as it relates to the regularization of the service of the respondent, in the post of Assistant, as per the Government Order, issued in G.O.Ms.No.487, Personnel and Administrative Reforms [Per.M] Department, dated 18.04.1979, and to issue certain consequential directions. 4. The learned Single Judge had passed an order, dated 03.02.2014, allowing the Writ Petition, by quashing the impugned order, dated 30.08.2005, and by directing the appellants herein to regularize the promotion of the respondent in the post of Selection Grade Assistant, with effect from 02.10.1978, and to further promote the respondent to the post of Special Grade Assistant, from 16.11.1988 and to the post of Superintendent, from 18.11.1993, and to grant him further promotion, if any, for which the respondent was entitled to, with all attendant, monetary and service benefits. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 03.02.2014, in W.P.(MD).No.914 of 2010, is contrary to the facts and the relevant provisions of law. It had been further stated that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD).No.914 of 2010. The learned Single Judge ought to have noted that the Special Temporary Post is only a temporary relief, granted to certain persons, in order to avoid the hardship arising from their stagnation in certain posts. It is not by way of a regular promotion. Hence, the question of awarding of selection grade or special grade to the respondent, in the promoted post, does not arise, with regard to the period of service, which was purely temporary in nature. It is not by way of a regular promotion. Hence, the question of awarding of selection grade or special grade to the respondent, in the promoted post, does not arise, with regard to the period of service, which was purely temporary in nature. It had been further stated that the respondent had joined in service, on 01.08.1958, as a Junior Assistant. He was granted promotion, as an Assistant, in the year, 1970. However, he had relinquished his rights relating to his promotion, permanently, as he had wished to remain as a Junior Assistant, from the year, 1958, till the year, 1994, when he had been wrongly promoted as an Assistant. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 03.02.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.914 of 2010, is liable to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the reversion of the respondent to the post of Junior Assistant, from the post of Assistant, had been stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.6702 of 1996, on 21.11.1996. By virtue of the said order, the status-quo had been restored and the respondent was deemed to have been continuing in service, as an Assistant. However, the respondent had not been in a position to join duty, as an Assistant, due to administrative delay and he had joined duty, only on 05.05.1997. Therefore, the learned counsel had submitted that in view of the stay order and as the delay in joining duty was due to want of posting order, the entire reversion period should be treated as a period on duty, with monetary and service benefits. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 03.02.2014, in W.P.(MD).No.914 of 2010. The learned Single Judge, while passing the order, has given cogent reasons for arriving at her conclusions. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case had been taken into consideration, while passing the said order. It is also noted that the respondent had retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. The monetary benefits due to the respondent is only a meagre amount. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case had been taken into consideration, while passing the said order. It is also noted that the respondent had retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. The monetary benefits due to the respondent is only a meagre amount. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants. 8. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 03.02.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.914 of 2010. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.