The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely approach to the court in service matters and the need to adhere to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(K. Chandru, J.)

Heard the arguments of Mr. P.V. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 7901 of 2000, Mr. Sivam Sivanandaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 23086 and 23087 of 2006 and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents in all these petitions and have perused the records.

2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7901 of 2000 was appointed as a Telephone Operator and his post was eligible to be converted into that of a Junior Assistant. He got the training for the post of Junior Assistant as early as on 23. 1987. However, without permitting him to become a Junior Assistant, his services was continued as a Telephone Operator. It was only on 06.02.1993, he was made as a Junior Assistant and on 29. 1996, he was promoted as an Assistant. Thereafter, he went on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation for a period of one year and five months. When he got repatriated, he was posted as a Revenue Inspector. In the meanwhile, certain employees who were appointed during the period 1981-84 got their services regularized w.e.f. 26. 1984 and they were also made permanent w.e.f. 09. 1984. Those employees went to the Tribunal in O.A. No. 5533 of 1996 seeking for drawal of seniority list and that O.A. was allowed on 30.6.1998. Pursuant to the order in the O.A., a seniority list was issued by the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 111. 1998. At that time, the petitioner did not object to the revised seniority list. Based upon the said seniority list, he was reverted to the post of Assistant on 06. 1999. His contention was that in the seniority list published in the year 1989 though his name was shown in Serial No. 274, in the revised seniority list, his name was shown as Serial No. 503.

3. The petitioner neither filed any Review Application before the Tribunal against the order dated 30.6.1998 in O.A. No. 5533 of 1996 nor challenged the seniority list dated 111. 1998 issued by the fourth respondent. But, however, after a period of two years, filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal as well as the consequential revised seniority list of the fourth respondent directly by way of writ proceedings. This was on the plea that such issue of seniority was previously concluded by earlier proceedings and binding guidelines were given by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.

4. This Court admitted the said writ petition and also granted status quo order on 24. 2000.

5. Similarly, N. Gunasekaran, (petitioner in W.P. No. 23086 of 2006) and N. Kailasam, (Petitioner in W.P. No. 23087 of 2006) who were also working as Telephone Operators and after conversion, became Junior Assistants and subsequently, got promoted to the post of Assistants in the year 1993. They were reverted to the post of Junior Assistants in the year 1998 pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 5533 of 1996 dated 30.6.1998 and also the revised seniority list published by the fourth respondent dated 111. 1998. It was only when a further order was made by P.A. General to Collector dated 312. 2001, the petitioner in W.P. No. 23086 of 2006 became aggrieved. Likewise, when the Commissioner for Revenue Administration, by his order dated 37. 2000, confirmed the earlier list, the petitioner in W.P. No. 23087 of 1996 became aggrieved. But even thereafter, they did not move the Tribunal and after a period of 5-1/2 years, they have filed the present writ petitions.

6. Such an inordinate delay can never be condoned and the petitioners, at the time of admission of the two writ petitions, submitted that since the earlier writ petition W.P. No. 7901 of 2000 was still pending, they can also have the benefit of a hearing in their Writ Petitions. This Court directed them to pay Rs. 10,000/-to the Chief Justice Fund as penalty for the inordinate delay in filing the two writ petitions. We do not think that such payment can condone t