JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. (Prayer : Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 22.03.2018 in W.P(MD)No.228 of 2018 and allow the writ appeal.) 1. The official respondents are the appellants. The respondent/Writ petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.268 of 2018 praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings/order in G.O.(D) No.552 dated 31.05.2010 passed by the first appellant and to quash the consequential proceedings of the second appellant dated 06.07.2010 insofar as it relates to regularization of period from 29.01.1998 to 31.07.2002 as non duty period with a consequential direction, directing the first appellant to regularize the period of service from 29.01.1998 to 31.07.2002 as duty period with consequent monetary and service benefits. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was dated 03.01.2018 and by consent of both parties, it was taken up for final hearing on 22.03.2018 and came to be allowed accordingly with certain directions. The official respondents aggrieved by the said order, had filed this writ appeal. 3. It is a case of the respondent/writ petitioner that he was selected and appointed as Assistant Surgeon temporarily under 10(a) (i) of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and was posted at Primary Health Centre on 05.04.1990 and while he was working in the said Post at the Primary Health Centre, Keelasevalpatti, Sivagangai District, in the year 1994, he applied for Post Graduate Course and his application was forwarded through proper channel and was selected for the Post Graduate Course under the category of Service Candidate. The respondent/writ petitioner had undergone the Post Graduate Course between 29.07.1994 to 28.07.1997. Even prior to completion of Course, through his representation dated 26.06.1997 and 1107.1997, the respondent/writ petitioner informed the concerned authorities as to the completion of the Course on 28.07.1997 and requested for re-posting orders. However, it was not considered. 4. The respondent/writ petitioner further submitted a representation dated 19.03.1998 to the first appellant making similar kind of request. Even prior to completion of Course, through his representation dated 26.06.1997 and 1107.1997, the respondent/writ petitioner informed the concerned authorities as to the completion of the Course on 28.07.1997 and requested for re-posting orders. However, it was not considered. 4. The respondent/writ petitioner further submitted a representation dated 19.03.1998 to the first appellant making similar kind of request. Since it was not considered, the respondent/writ petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.4128 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and it was disposed of on 19.08.1999 with a liberty to submit one more copy of the representation dated 19.03.1998 with a further direction, directing the first appellant to consider the same and pass orders on merits within a period of four months from the date of the order. 5. The respondent/writ petitioner was issued with a charge-memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 06.04.2002 and subsequently, he was issued with a re-posting order dated 23.07.2002 pending disciplinary action and accordingly, the respondent/writ petitioner joined duty on 01.08.2002. 6. In pursuant to the further proceedings, the charge-memo came to be dropped by the first appellant vide G.O.(D)No.1347 dated 30.10.2007. Subsequently, the first appellant has issued G.O.(D) No.552 dated 31.05.2010 as to the regularization of the period from 29.07.1997 to 31.07.2002 and challenging the manner of regularization, the respondent/writ petitioner came forward to file the above said writ petition. 7. The learned single Judge vide impugned order dated 22.03.2018 has taken into consideration the facts and other circumstances, held that the period from 29.07.1997 to 31.07.2002 shall be treated as one on loss of pay by applying the Principle of 'No-Work-No-Pay'. But, however held that the said period shall count for all other purposes including increment and pension and there shall be continuity of service. The official respondents aggrieved by the said portion of the order in paragraph No.4, had filed this writ appeal. 8. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/official respondents would submit that even in the order dated 19.08.1999 in O.A.No.4218 of 1999 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, it was observed that there is no proof submitted by the applicant therein/respondent herein, for submitting the representation dated 19.03.1998. 8. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/official respondents would submit that even in the order dated 19.08.1999 in O.A.No.4218 of 1999 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, it was observed that there is no proof submitted by the applicant therein/respondent herein, for submitting the representation dated 19.03.1998. Therefore, the applicant therein/respondent herein was granted liberty to submit one more copy of the representation dated 19.03.1998 with a consequential direction to dispose of the same within a stipulated time frame. The first appellant having taken note of all the facts and relevant circumstances and also by invoking the proviso to Rule 23(a) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933, had correctly treated the period and he has passed appropriate orders as to the regularization of the said period and in the light of the said Rule Position, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge with certain directions in Paragraph No.4, requires modification. 9. Per contra, Mr.K.Samidurai, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner even prior to the completion of Post Graduate Course had repeatedly submitted representation for posting orders and since it was not considered, was constrained to file O.A.No.4218 of 1999 and the same came to be disposed of on 19.08.1999 with certain directions. In pursuant to the liberty granted, though he had submitted a copy of the earlier representation dated 19.03.1998, the order impugned regularizing the period of service came to be passed belatedly on 31.05.2010 and for which, the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be put to any blame. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner that the second appellant vide proceedings in K.K.vz;.51094/gbjh 5/m2/2011, dated 12.08.2011, had taken note of the successful completion of probation on 09.05.1992, passed orders, as to the entitlement to get increase in pay in terms of Rule 23(a) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and the arrears of pay in terms of Rule 10(A) and (C) of the Medical Services Special Rules. The said fact has not been taken into consideration by the first appellant while passing the impugned orders. He would further add that in the light of the same, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge with certain directions is perfectly in order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The said fact has not been taken into consideration by the first appellant while passing the impugned orders. He would further add that in the light of the same, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge with certain directions is perfectly in order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Heard the submissions of Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent also. 11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 12. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was sworn to on 03.01.2018 and according to the learned Special Government Pleader, counter-affidavit has not been filed and the writ petition came to be disposed of on 22.03.2018 on the basis of the consent given by both parties. 13. It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that one more opportunity would have been granted to the appellants/official respondents to file counter-affidavit as to the Rule position and the relevant facts and circumstances of the case would have been brought to the knowledge of the learned singe Judge and therefore, prays for appropriate orders for setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner in response to the said submission, has drawn the attention of this Court to the additional typed set of documents filed in W.P(MD)No.268 of 2018 and submitted that in the light of the above cited proceedings of the second appellant dated 12.08.2011, the writ petition need not be remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration. 15. It is to be noted at this juncture that the writ petition is akin to original proceedings and therefore, the principles of pleadings have equal application. Though the respondent/writ petitioner has filed additional typed set of documents dated 06.03.2018, it is not supported by any additional affidavit and there is no reference to the contents of the additional typed set of documents in the impugned order passed in the writ petition. 16. It also appears from the impugned order that the attention of the learned single Judge have not been drawn to Rule 23(a) of the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933. 17. 16. It also appears from the impugned order that the attention of the learned single Judge have not been drawn to Rule 23(a) of the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933. 17. Therefore, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed in the writ petition is to be set aside with a consequential direction for remanding the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration and adjudication. 18. In the result, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 passed in W.P(MD)No.268 of 2018, is set aside and the writ petition is once again remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration and adjudication. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 19. The appellants/official respondents shall file their counter-affidavit with supporting documents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondent/writ petitioner is also at liberty to file additional documents with supporting affidavits.