JUDGMENT (Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 12.07.2018 made in W.A.No.52 of 2017 passed by the Division Bench.) R.Subramanian, J. 1. Mr.R.Murugesan, Chief Engineer (AE), Agricultural Engineering Department one of the contemners is present in person. 2. The review is sought for on the sole ground that the petitioner in the writ petition has attained the age of superannuation on the date when the Division Bench passed orders for his reinstatement. 3. This is an unfortunate case where the temporary worker was shown the door on 01.04.1990, despite the fact that he had qualified for permanent appointment on the said date. He made several representations to various Authorities. Since they did not evoke a positive response, he approached the Labour Officer, Conoor seeking conciliation on 15.10.1993. The said proceeding was terminated on the ground that no conciliation was possible. The respondent herein again made a representation seeking permanency and since that application was kept pending he filed WP.No.9045 of 1999 before this Court and the same was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T.A.No.17 of 1999. The said application came to be disposed of by the Tribunal on 8th July 1999 directing the Review Applicant herein to pass orders on the application. Thereafter, the review applicant rejected the request of the respondent on 06.10.1999 in total ignorance of the amended Rules. 4. This order dated 06.10.1999 was challenged in O.A.No.6994 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The same was transferred to this Court upon abolition of the Tribunal and numbered as W.P.No.38431 of 2006. The writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 15.06.2016. The respondent preferred an appeal in W.A.No.52 of 2017 which came to be allowed by this Court on 12.07.2018. This order dated 12.07.2018 was challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil)(Diary) No.5892 of 2019. Even when the condone delay petition came up for hearing, the petitioners before the Supreme Court viz., the review applicants herein chose to withdraw the same with liberty to move this Court by way of a review. 5. In the review petition it is urged that since the respondent has not been in service from the date of his termination viz., 01.04.1990 the Division Bench ought not to have directed regularization. 5. In the review petition it is urged that since the respondent has not been in service from the date of his termination viz., 01.04.1990 the Division Bench ought not to have directed regularization. It is not as if the Division Bench was not alive to the said fact. The fact that the respondent was terminated on 01.04.1990 was taken note of and the Division Bench had held that the respondent would be entitled to the benefits of the amended Rule, which was overlooked by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. In view of the above we do not see any reason to entertain the review which seeks to re-agitate the same question once over again. 6. As we had already pointed out, the respondent had not disappeared as alleged in the grounds of review, he was continuously pursuing the matter and seeking to establish his rights. Ultimately when he succeeded he had reached the age of superannuation. Hence, we do not see any reason to entertain the review. The Review Petition is dismissed. The respondent would be entitled to regularization notionally with all service and financial benefits. 7. The learned Government Pleader wants to throw at us the letter dated 11.06.1990 addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineer Department, Conoor to demonstrate that the respondent had by his letter dated 16.02.1990 required the said officer to terminate his Provident Fund account. The said request has also been rejected by the Assistant Executive Engineer on the ground that he cannot entertain such request. 8. We do not think it will be safe for us to rely upon such proceeding, which has been produced now without any supporting affidavit. 9. Since we had dismissed the review petition today, we direct the review applicant who is present in person to ensure compliance with the orders of the Division Bench on or before 20.09.2023. 10. Post the Contempt Petition No.446 of 2019 on 22.09.2023 for compliance.