JUDGMENT : T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Heard Mr. K. Ponnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.08.2016 made in W.P.(MD).No.16296 of 2016. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to notionally promote the appellant to the post of Headmaster of Elementary School on the ground that the name of the appellant was included in the panel drawn as on 01.01.2008 for promotion as Headmaster of Elementary School, by order dated 31.03.2008, and also grant consequential monetary benefits to the appellant, who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2008, after which he had made a representation and thereafter the appellant has approached this Court stating that his representations were not considered and therefore a direction was issued to the third respondent to consider the representations. The Writ Court was of the view that since the appellant retired from service in 2008 and has been attempting to resurrect the issue, he is guilty of delay and laches and accordingly, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition. 4. As against the said order, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal. It may be true that the appellant attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2008. But the fact remains that prior to his retirement, the appellant was found fit to be considered for promotion and his name was included in the promotion panel prepared by the respondent Department. When this panel was objected by certain other teachers in the same school, which is Panchayat Union School, the District Elementary Education Officer by his proceedings dated 02.04.2008, ordered that since the appellant's name was not considered earlier, due to the fault of the Department, the other teachers cannot object to the same for considering the claim of the appellant. The above proceedings would clearly show the entitlement of the appellant for promotion. 5. The above proceedings would clearly show the entitlement of the appellant for promotion. 5. Considering the fact that the appellant was working in the Panchayat Union School and the member of the school would not be in a position to address the educational authorities demanding that he has to be granted benefit before his superannuation, the delay, if any, cannot be solely attributable to the appellant and as admitted by the Department, the appellant has been put to prejudice on account of certain delay in the Department. Therefore, we are convinced that the third respondent should consider the representations of the appellant and grant notional promotion to him by taking into consideration the inclusion of the name in the panel drawn on 11.01.2008 for promotion as Headmaster of Elementary School by order dated 31.03.2008 and pay the consequential monetary benefits within a time frame. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Writ Court is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 7. It is brought to our notice that some of the teachers, who are juniors to the appellant, namely, T.Rameshwari, filed the Writ Petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.3213 of 2008 challenging the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Educational Officer dated 12.10.2007. It is stated that when the writ petition was entertained, the Court directed the promotion panel, in which the appellant was not included, to be kept alive. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was not listed for disposal and ultimately those writ petitioners withdrew the Writ Petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.11.2011. It is stated that those teachers, who are juniors to the appellant, also got the benefit of promotion. It is made clear that in the event, there was any junior, who had been promoted during the said period, whatever the payment of benefits have been directed to be made to the appellant, the same shall not be recovered from the other teachers.