Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 02.05.2012, whereunder, the representation dated 30.03.2011 of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the representation cannot be entertained since he had already retired from service and also a direction to the third respondent to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.329, Home (Cts.V) Department dated 23.04.2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Memo"), to the petitioner.

2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the Judicial Subordinate Service as Junior Assistant with the City Civil Court at Madras on 19.02.1983. He was promoted from time to time. He was working as Assistant (Selection Grade) at the relevant point of time when the first respondent issued the Memo, adopting the Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations for grant of 3 grades of Bench Clerks from Courts of Civil Judges–Junior Division, Civil Judges-Senior Division and Courts of District Judges respectively. Under the Memo, the post of Assistants had been upgraded.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said Memo has been implemented in other District Courts and Mofussil Courts, except in the case of Non-Judicial Staff rendering service at the City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner submitted a representation on 30.03.2011 for grant of the benefit to him on the afore-stated grounds. Since no action was taken on his representation, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being W.P. No.13816 of 2011 (K.Meganathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others).

4. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.07.2011, passed the following order:

"3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 produced before us an official memorandum dated 7th July 2011 issued under the signature of the Registrar General informing the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai that he has been authorised to prepare a consolidated seniority list for all the City Courts and offices and all the appointing authorities are directed to address the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to nominate the next senior most persons from the said consolidated seniority list for filling up the vacancies in categories 1 to 5 of Class-I and also to the above upgraded posts of Bench Clerk Grade I, II and III in their respective units without calling for willingness from all city units pending amendment to the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid memorandum issued, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. It is made clear that the exercise, as stated by the second respondent in the official memorandum dt. 7th July, 2011 addressed to the third respondent, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."

Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 02.05.2012 by the third respondent which is under challenge in this writ petition."

5. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the other similarly-situated Assistants working in other District Courts and Mofussil Courts have obtained the benefit of the Memo and there is no reason to deny the same to the petitioner on the ground that he was working in the City Civil Court at Chennai. It is further contended that the delay on the part of the respondents in implementing the Memo, cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of the said Memo to the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner became eligible to the benefit of the said Memo on the date on which the same came into effect and the benefit was given to the other similarly-situated employees and the reason assigned by the third respondent that since the petitioner had retired from service on 31.03.2011 before the Memo could be given effect to, in the Courts in Chennai, he would not be entitled to th