JUDGMENT : Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. When the matter was taken up on 10.3.2017, none appeared for the petitioner and hence, we adjourned the matter on that day by two weeks. The matter again appeared on 24.3.2017 and a request was made to adjourn the case by two weeks and accordingly, the matter is adjourned to today. When the matter is called today, none appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The writ petitioner, upon being sponsored by the local Employment Exchange, came to be appointed on temporary basis as a Typist by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai through proceedings dated 04.6.1997. It is the claim of the writ petitioner that when similarly situated employees instituted W.P.No.20341 of 2001 and batch of cases, which were disposed of on 03.7.2001 by a Division Bench, it has been held that so long as there are vacancies available, the temporarily recruited candidates may not be ousted from service. 3. Thereafter, the writ petitioner, in the company of several others, also instituted W.P.No.10132 of 2005 seeking a Writ of Mandamus for regularization of their services in the post of Typist. That writ petition was decided on 24.3.2006 by a Division Bench issuing several directions. The principal among them was a direction to the Appointing Authorities of the Units where the temporary Steno-Typists and Junior Assistants were already ousted, shall, on their application, consider providing employment to them in the posts of Reader/Examiner/Copyist, on regular basis as fresh entrants. If some of the temporarily recruited Steno-Typists, Typists and Junior Assistants are still working, a further direction was issued to oust them from service and then upon consideration of their applications, provide them employment as Readers/Examiners/Copyist on regular basis as fresh entrants after one clear day gap from the date of ousting. It was also ordered to be made clear that their appointment on temporary basis as Typists, Steno-Typists or Junior Assistants will not be considered for the purpose of service benefits such as pay protection, increment, seniority and promotion except for pensionary benefits. 4. In terms of this order of the Division Bench, through proceedings dated 26.4.2006, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai ousted the temporarily recruited candidates, including the writ petitioner herein from the post of Typist. By a separate proceeding dated 27.4.2006, several candidates came to be appointed as Examiner/Reader with effect from 28.4.2006. 4. In terms of this order of the Division Bench, through proceedings dated 26.4.2006, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai ousted the temporarily recruited candidates, including the writ petitioner herein from the post of Typist. By a separate proceeding dated 27.4.2006, several candidates came to be appointed as Examiner/Reader with effect from 28.4.2006. The writ petitioner is one such, who has been appointed as a Copyist in the Unit of the City Civil Court, Chennai. By proceedings dated 25.6.2008, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai also declared the writ petitioner to have completed satisfactorily the two year period of probation with effect from 06.5.2008. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.3.2009 seeking condonation of break in service and also for pay protection. He followed it up with another representation dated 10.2.2011. That request has been turned down on 15.12.2014 by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for the reason that as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.10132 of 2005 dated 24.3.2006, the writ petitioner came to be appointed as a fresh entrant in the cadre of Copyist with effect from 28.4.2006 and that he is also not entitled for any benefit for the past temporary service as a Typist. 6. Since the petitioner herein is a party to the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.10132 of 2005, pursuant to which alone, he came to be appointed as a fresh entrant as a Copyist through proceedings dated 27.4.2006 with effect from 28.4.2006, for all practical purposes, the temporary services rendered as Typist by him upto 26.4.2006 will be of no avail. He cannot seek any benefit for such temporary length of service. Virtually, the request made by the petitioner seeking condonation of break in service and pay protection based upon the past service would amount to reviewing the directions issued by the Division Bench on the Judicial Side, which powers are not available to a District Unit Head. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner in his representations is beyond the limit of authority of power in the hands of the Unit Head where the writ petitioner came to be appointed as a fresh entrant with effect from 28.4.2006. 7. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner in his representations is beyond the limit of authority of power in the hands of the Unit Head where the writ petitioner came to be appointed as a fresh entrant with effect from 28.4.2006. 7. This apart, it would be wholly appropriate to recall that the Division Bench, by its order dated 24.3.2006, has given directions, which it did based purely on compassion towards the length of temporary service put in by several employees. It is also appropriate to remember that the very process of temporary recruitment is resorted to, as the process of direct recruitment is consuming much more time than anticipated by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and with a view to ensure that the work in the Courts does not suffer for want of adequate man power, resort is made for recruitment on temporary basis. 8. Even on merits, we are satisfied that the temporary services rendered by the petitioner prior to 26.4.2006 as a Typist cannot be counted for purposes of pay protection in the post of Copyist where he joined service as a fresh entrant. A fresh entrant into service cannot ask for pay protection. Therefore, we see no merit in the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.