K.K. Sasidharan, J. - (1.)THE petitioner along with similarly placed workers of Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as "TWAD Board") preferred an application for conferment of Permanent Status. The competent authority passed an award dated 29 November 2002 in R.C. No.848 of 2002 directing the respondents to confer permanent status to them. The said order was not implemented by TWAD Board. The petitioner therefore filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.3809 of 2004 along with others. The TWAD Board on the other hand filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.4675 of 2004 challenging the award. This Court was pleased to pass a common order dated 9 February 2012 allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and other workmen and dismissing the writ petition filed by the Management. The common order was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court by way of intra court appeal in W.A. Nos. 1644 and 1981 of 2012. Thereafter the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The TWAD Board implemented the order in respect of other workers. The case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that his name was recorded as "A. Bhagavathi Paramasivam" in the records. However it was recorded as "A.B. Paramasivam" in the order passed by the competent authority constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. This unreasonable stand taken by the management compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition.
(2.)I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the TWAD Board.
The petitioner along with sixteen others preferred a claim petition before the competent authority. His name was shown as "A.B. Paramasivam" in the claim petition. However, in all other records, the name of the petitioner was noted as "A. Bhagavathi Paramasivam". The TWAD Board was a party in all these matters. The TWAD Board filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 4675 of 2004 challenging the award dated 29 November 2002. The petitioner was a party to the said writ petition. The petitioner entered appearance through counsel and defended the proceedings. Similarly he was a party in W.A. Nos. 1644 and 1981 of 2012. He was also a party in SLP (Civil) Nos. 35106 -35107 of 2012 before the Supreme Court. During the currency of these proceedings, the TWAD Board has no case that the petitioner is only "A.B. Paramasivam" and as such the person by name "A. Bhagavathi Paramasivam" is not entitled to contest the proceedings.

(3.)SINCE TWAD Board has taken up a contention regarding identity, I have directed the petitioner to file a sworn affidavit indicating the earlier proceedings.