Judgment :- S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. Challenging the order, dated 06.01.2009, made in W.P.(MD)No.6794 of 2008, by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the State. 2. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had joined service as a 'Care Taker' on 29.06.1970 under the appellants. On 28.12.1995, having qualified by completing SSLC, she got her promotion as 'Women Welfare Officer' and transferred to Paramathi Village. She had submitted her SSLC Certificate and other documents to the District Nutrition Officer, Karur. Subsequently, there was a dispute with regard to the genuineness of the mark sheet produced by the respondent/writ petitioner. In view of the same, notice was issued by the third appellant to appear before him and submit the original certificates. The case of the respondent/writ petitioner is that she got through the examination and acquired the minimum qualification for the said post and only after verifying the originals, she was given promotion. However, charges were framed on 24.05.2004 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 4. While enquiry was pending, the Commissioner, Paramathi Panchayat Union, passed an order in Na.Ka.A1/1755/05, dated 29.08.2006, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2913/- from the respondent/writ petitioner. Challenging the said order, the respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006 before this Court and obtained an order of interim stay against the recovery order. While so, on completion of the departmental proceedings, as per order dated 26.07.207, passed in Na.Ka.No.52785/Admn.5(3)/07, by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Chennai, she was dismissed from service, subject to the result of the order to be passed in Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006. Further, in the said order, she was also informed that she is entitled to prefer an appeal against the said order of dismissal within 60 days before the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department. However, as per order, dated 03.10.2007, in Rc.No.52785/Admn.5(3)07, the Director of Social Welfare Department, passed the following order. "ORDER: In reconsideration of the above proceedings second cited, I hereby revoke the order issued in Proceedings No.52785/Admn.5(3)/03, Dtd.26.07.2007 of the Director of Social Welfare, Chennai-5. However, as per order, dated 03.10.2007, in Rc.No.52785/Admn.5(3)07, the Director of Social Welfare Department, passed the following order. "ORDER: In reconsideration of the above proceedings second cited, I hereby revoke the order issued in Proceedings No.52785/Admn.5(3)/03, Dtd.26.07.2007 of the Director of Social Welfare, Chennai-5. The Writ Petitioner namely Tmt.S.Sankarammal, Rural Welfare Officer (W) is hereby permitted to retire on the afternoon of 31.7.07 on superannuation subject to final orders that may be passed pending writ petition in No.9329/06 of the Honourable Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court." As per the order, it is crystal clear that the respondent/writ petitioner was permitted to retire on attaining superannuation with effect from 31.07.2007 afternoon, however that was subject to the final orders that may be passed in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006 on the file of this Court. 5. As per order dated 30.07.2008, passed in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006, by this Court, it is seen that the said writ petition was ordered to be closed, in view of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents therein on the ground that the recovery order, dated 29.08.2006, was withdrawn and hence there was need to pass further orders. As the pension papers were not forwarded, the respondent/ writ petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.6794 of 2008, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, seeking direction to the appellants to forward the pension papers, in pursuance of her superannuation on 31.07.2007. The said writ petition was disposed of as per order dated 06.01.2009 and the operative portion of the order reads as follows: "6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be suffice to direct the respondents to forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the second respondent who attained the age of superannuation on 31/7/2007. The said exercise has to be carried out by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the State. 6. The said exercise has to be carried out by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the State. 6. Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the order, dated 03.10.2007, permitting the respondent to retire was passed by the Director, Social Welfare Department, only subject to the result of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006 and therefore the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006, dated 30.07.2008, is subject to the review petition filed by the appellants herein. 7. Prior to the dismissal, the respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006 and obtained an interim order however, violating the interim order, dismissal was ordered and hence the respondent filed contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.292 of 2007. In the impugned order, dated 06.01.2009, the learned Single Judge has categorically stated that the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006 was closed in view of the request made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. Having passed the order permitting the respondent/writ petitioner to continue in service till the date of her retirement i.e. on 31.07.2007, subject to the result of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006, it is not open to the appellants to take a different stand after the writ petition was closed at the request of the Additional Government pleader. 8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006 was only a consent order, otherwise it would not have been closed on the representation of the learned Additional Government Pleader. As the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Director, Social Welfare Department, was in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner, permitting her to retire on attaining superannuation, there was no need to challenge the earlier order of dismissal. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not fair on the part of the appellants to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2004 SC 1469 – R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala. However, the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since, in the instant case, the respondent/writ petitioner was permitted to retire on 31.07.2007, on attaining superannaution, subject to disposal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006. However, the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since, in the instant case, the respondent/writ petitioner was permitted to retire on 31.07.2007, on attaining superannaution, subject to disposal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006. Admittedly, the said writ petition was closed on the representation made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, on 30.07.2008. Hence, W.P.(MD)No.6794 of 2008 was filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, wherein the learned Single Judge has given a categorical finding regarding the closure of W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006 at the request of the Additional Government Pleader. Hence, we are of the considered view that the appellants are not empowered to re-open and reagitate the issue that was already reached its finality, as per order dated 03.10.2007, passed by the Director of Social Welfare Department. Taking advantage of the dismissal or closure of the writ petition, the appellants cannot pass any adverse order against the respondent/writ petitioner, as the same would be against law. 10. The only argument advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General is that the order dated 03.10.2007 was subject to the disposal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2006. However, the said writ petition was only closed, based on the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, we are of the view that nothing survives to reagitate, by way of writ appeal, since the impugned order has been passed by the learned 'Single Judge, considering the entire legal and factual aspects, properly. 11. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, as not legally sustainable. Having considered the facts and circumstances, we provide four weeks further time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the appellants for compliance. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.