JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order in W.P. No. 10657 of 2014 dated 27.10.2017.) 1. The Appellant was appointed as Industrial Instructor in the Government Industrial Training Centre for Blind (hereinafter referred to as 'Training Centre' for short), Poonamalle and had been working in that post from 26.07.1990 onwards. According to the Appellant, the incumbent in the post of Manager in that Training Centre retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2005 and that he has been discharging the functions of the Manager of that Training Centre from 01.08.2005 onwards and he had been placed in-charge of that post. The Appellant made a representation dated 24.06.2006 for promoting him in the post of Manager on permanent basis and as the same was not considered, he had filed W.P. No. 24511 of 2009 in this Court seeking a direction to consider his claim for the same. This Court by order dated 06.03.2013, disposed that Writ Petition directing the First Respondent therein to consider the representation of the Appellant made in that regard. In pursuance thereof, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O. (1D) No. 03, Department of Welfare of Differently Abled dated 04.02.2014 directed to revive the vacancy of Manager and fill up the vacancy by temporarily promoting the Appellant to that post based on Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and as a sequel thereto, the State Commissioner for Differently Abled by proceedings Se. Mu. Ka. No. 1230/Ci.Pa.1/2008 dated 18.02.2014 temporarily promoted the Appellant to the post of Manager with effect from 04.02.2014. The Appellant in his representation dated 13.03.2014 contended that he had been discharging the functions of the Manager from 01.08.2005 onwards in the Training Centre and claimed that the difference in monetary benefits arising therefrom may be granted to him for that period. The aforesaid representation of the Appellant was forwarded by the Principal of the Training Centre by order Na. Ka. No. 617/E/2011 dated 28.03.2014 to the State Commissioner for Different Abled. The aforesaid representation of the Appellant was forwarded by the Principal of the Training Centre by order Na. Ka. No. 617/E/2011 dated 28.03.2014 to the State Commissioner for Different Abled. As there is no response for the same, the Appellant filed W.P. No. 10657 of 2014 in this Court challenging G.O. (1D) No. 03, Department of Welfare of Differently Abled dated 04.02.2014 insofar as it denied him the service benefits to the post of Manager with effect from 01.08.2005 and had sought for consequential direction to grant service benefits (including monetary benefits and pensionary benefits) from the date of holding the post of Manager on 01.08.2005 onwards. 2. The Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, by order dated 27.10.2017 dismissed that Writ Petition. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. K. Venkatramani, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenuously urged that that inasmuch as the Appellant had been discharging the functions of the Manager in the Training Centre from 01.08.2005, when he was placed in-charge of that post, he ought to have been given retrospective promotion with effect from that date when the vacancy arose. We are unable to accept the said submission in view of the settled legal position as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pawan Pratap Singh -vs- Reevan Singh [ (2011) 3 SCC 267 ] that the seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. 5. However, it has to be pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab -vs- Jagjit Singh [ (2017) 1 SCC 148 ] and Sabha Shanker Dube -vs- Divisional Forest Officer [(2018) SCC OnLine 2440], has reiterated the settled legal position that temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed in casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Appellant has already made a representation dated 13.03.2014 in that regard, which has been forwarded by the Principal of the Training Centre to the State Commissioner for Differently Abled on 28.03.2014, which according to the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, had not yet been disposed of. 6. In that factual backdrop, we are of the considered view that it would suffice to direct the Second Respondent to consider the aforesaid representation dated 13.03.2014 made by the Appellant for payment of difference in wages to him for the period from 01.08.2005 to 03.02.2014, during which he has claimed to have worked in the post of Manager in the Training Centre, and pass a reasoned order on merits in accordance with law and communicate the decision taken to the Petitioner and file a report of compliance before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 30.06.2019. 7. In the upshot, the Writ Appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. No costs.