Judgment : Aruna Jagadeesan, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.1192 of 2004, whereby a common order dated 24.11.2010 was passed with the following direction. Judgment : Aruna Jagadeesan, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.1192 of 2004, whereby a common order dated 24.11.2010 was passed with the following direction. “W.P.No.1109 of 2004 (i) the second respondent/management is directed to settle the entire claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.1109 of 2004 as per law from the date of her recruitment till the date of her voluntary retirement, viz., 31.5.2006 and send the proposal to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on the first respondent receiving the said proposal, he shall grant proper approval by passing appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter and it is made clear that if the proposal is not sent by the second respondent within the time stipulated above, the second respondent shall be liable to pay interest for the entire amount due to the said petitioner in W.P.No.1109 of 2004 for the said period till the date of voluntary retirement at the rate of 12% per annum; W.P.No.1192 of 2004 (ii) the second respondent shall sent to the first respondent proper proposal in respect of the service conditions of the petitioner in W.P.No.1192 of 2004 as per letter of the district Educational Officer dated 26.03.2003 including the proposal for regularization of his period of leave from 15.06.1992 to 5.9.2000, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receiving such proposal, the first respondent shall grant approval in accordance with law and release the monetary benefits due, including the arrears of salary, fixing the final pension, etc., and such orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter and it is made clear that if the proposal is not sent by the second respondent within the time stipulated above, the second respondent shall be liable to pay interest for the entire amount due to the petitioner in W.P.No.1192 of 2004 at the rate of 12% per annum; (iii) on payment of the said amount due to the petitioner in W.P.No.1192 of 2004, as stated above, it is for the first respondent to take appropriate action against the second respondent for the deliberate disobedience of the directions of the educational authorities; (iv) the second respondent shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner in W.P.No.1192 of 2004.” 2. Aggrieved against the said order, the first respondent in W.P.No.1192 of 2004 has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. After elaborate discussion of the entire issue and taking into account that the second respondent Management in this appeal has not send any proposal for regularisation of the 1st respondent, the learned single Judge directed the second respondent to send a proper proposal in respect of the service conditions of the first respondent as per letter of the District Educational Officer dated 26.03.2003 including the proposal for regularisation of the period of leave of the 1st respondent/petitioner from 15.06.1992 to 05.09.2000 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on receiving such proposal, the appellant/first respondent was directed to grant approval in accordance with law and release the monetary benefits due to the first respondent including the arrears of salary etc. 5. It is to be noted that as per Clause (iii) of the said order, the first respondent/appellant herein was given liberty to take appropriate action against the second respondent Management for deliberate disobedience of the directions of the Educational Authorities, thus, safeguarding the interest of the appellant/District Educational Officer herein. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge. 6. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.