JUDGMENT : PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.09.2018 passed in W.P. No. 39981 of 2005. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the writ court dated 11.09.2018 made in W.P. No. 39981 of 2005, by which the writ court allowed the writ petition filed by the sole respondent herein and directed the appellant to upgrade the petitioner to the post of Record Assistant from 01.07.1996 and pay all the monetary benefits with upgraded pay scale and all other attendant benefits to the petitioner in a time bound manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the State is on appeal. 2. This is an unfortunate journey of a Record Clerk in the appellant department. The sole respondent was appointed as Record Clerk on 27.07.1963 and retired on 01.05.1997. As per G.O.Ms. No. 2 Personnel and Administration Reforms Department, dated 02.01.1996, his avenue for promotion was opened and he ought to have been upgraded as Record Assistant on 01.07.1996. He should have been included in the panel list dated 22.10.1998 as per the recommendation of the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, as early as on 23.07.1996, but it was not done so. The respondent had sent several representations in this regard before his retirement, on 01.05.1997. Even though the sole respondent retired, he claims that he should have been upgraded as Record Assistant. 3. Aggrieved by the long silence of the appellant, the respondent herein filed O.A. No. 7917/2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The said OA was filed to direct the appellant to dispose of his representation. However, the Tribunal dismissed the same on 18.02.2001 on the ground of delay. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent herein filed a writ petition before this court in W.P. No. 38408 of 2002. A Division Bench of this court, on 10.10.2002, passed the following order: “2. We also feel that the tribunal should not have gone into the merits of the matter and should have only considered the matter from the angle as to whether the direction sought for by the petitioners could have been given or not. We, therefore, issued a notice to the learned Government Advocate. The Government Advocate has very fairly accepted that the representation dated 25.9.2000 shall be considered within a reasonable time and the result shall be informed to the petitioner. We, therefore, issued a notice to the learned Government Advocate. The Government Advocate has very fairly accepted that the representation dated 25.9.2000 shall be considered within a reasonable time and the result shall be informed to the petitioner. On this, we dispose of the writ petitions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. Nos. 57432 and 57433 of 2002 are closed.” 4. Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the appellant considered the representation of the respondent and rejected the same on 18.02.2004. The only reason assigned therein was that the respondent had already retired on 01.05.1997. 5. Being aggrieved by the said rejection order, the respondent has filed W.P. No. 39981 of 2005 for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the rejection order and consequently for a direction to the appellant herein to upgrade the sole respondent to the post of Record Assistant from 01.07.1996 and pay the respondent all the monetary benefits with upgraded pay scale and all other attendant benefits thereto. 6. Upon hearing both the parties and after considering all the relevant materials for the disposal of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed the following order: “13. In the result: (a) this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the respondent in Ref. Na. Ka. No. 081736/C9 Division/C8/2003 dated 18.02.2004. (b) the respondent is directed to upgrade the petitioner to the post of Record Assistant from 01.07.1996 and pay all the monetary benefits with upgraded pay scale and all other attendant benefits thereto to the petitioner. (c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of twelve weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The specific case of the writ petitioner was that he was entitled for his promotion as per G.O.Ms. No. 131 dated 3.6.1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 2 P&AR Department dated 2.1.1996. 9. G.O.Ms. No. 2 Personnel and Administration Reforms Department specifically provides for mode of appointment and also the mode of upgradation. The appellant has not applied the above modes, while considering the representation of the respondent, when specifically this court had issued a direction and the appellant had also consented to pass order on merits. 10. 9. G.O.Ms. No. 2 Personnel and Administration Reforms Department specifically provides for mode of appointment and also the mode of upgradation. The appellant has not applied the above modes, while considering the representation of the respondent, when specifically this court had issued a direction and the appellant had also consented to pass order on merits. 10. Besides the above, it is pertinent to advert to the fact that the District Educational Officer vide his letter in Na. Ka. No. 4220/A1/96 dated 23.7.1996 had recommended that the respondent should have been promoted as Record Assistant from 01.07.1996, based on his seniority and date of retirement. This was also not considered by the appellant before passing the order, which was impugned in the writ petition. 11. The promotion given to one A. Krishnamoorthi who had also retired in 1996 was considered by the writ court. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that his promotion was later on reverted on 3.6.1994, as the date of upgradation is only with effect from the date of issuance of the order and not from the date of government order. As the respondent was in service on the date of government order and his name was also recommended to be upgraded from 1.7.1996, much after the issuance of G.O. the writ court was right in allowing the writ petition and issuing direction to the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order of the learned single Judge, to interfere with. Thus, the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed. 12. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.