Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or orders, and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of 1st respondent in relation to the order bearing R.C.No.1329/E/87, dated 18. 1989 quash the same consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service effect from 18. 1989 with all consequential benefits of regularisation, back wages award costs and render justice.” 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 210. 1990. 3. Though notice has been served on the respondents nobody has entered appearance behalf of respondents 1 and 2 Mr. P. Arivudainambi, learned Government Advocate, appears for the third respondent. No counter has been filed by the third respondent. I called records from the third respondent. I have gone through the records. 4. The petitioner was provisionally appointed as a daily wager in the village Industries Board on 210. 1958 and he worked in the board upto 18. 1970. Thereafter from 7. 1972 18. 1978 and from 22. 1979 to 212. 1980 the petitioner worked as daily wager in Board. Subsequently from 212. 1980 he was appointed as a watchman on contingent and he worked in the carpentry and Blacksmithy Unit, Guindy from 212. 1980 to 6. 1982. Thereafter the petitioner worked from 211. 1982 to 2. 1983 in the Khadi and Village Industries Board, Thiruvannamalai and from 12. 1983 to 14. 1984 in Kancheepuram from 24. 1984 to 18. 1989 in the carpentry and Black-smithy Unit, Guindy. .5. The petitioner was issued with an order dated 8. 1989 passed by the Regional Director, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Vellore, ousting the petitioner service with immediate effect, and the petitioner was relieved from service on 18. 1989. The petitioner has made representations to the respondents requesting them to reinstate him in service. By an order dated 7. 1990 the second respondent stated that Government has informed the Board by its letter dated 16. 1990 that since appointment was made after 7. 1980, the proposal to bring the petitioner on a regular scale was not accepted. The petitioner has made a representation to the Government 19. 1989, and reports were called from the Khadi and Village Industries Board. 1990 the second respondent stated that Government has informed the Board by its letter dated 16. 1990 that since appointment was made after 7. 1980, the proposal to bring the petitioner on a regular scale was not accepted. The petitioner has made a representation to the Government 19. 1989, and reports were called from the Khadi and Village Industries Board. The by its report dated 11. 1989 recommended that the petitioner could be absorbed one of the vacant posts of watchman on regular basis on compassionate grounds by relaxing the Regulation 6(2) of the Board’s service Regulation relating to recruitment through Employment Exchange. The petitioner made a further representation to the Minister charge of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board on 20.9.1989. A note was put the concerned Minister and ultimately a decision was arrived at to issue a direction Board to bring the petitioner in the regular time scales of pay in the post of watchman effect from 4. 1987 taking into consideration of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.107, P (Personnel) Department, dated 2. 1987 and relaxing the regulation 6(2) of the Board service Regulation. I could see from the file that though the Minister concerned approved the proposal to bring the petitioner in the regular time scale of pay with from 4. 1987 on compassionate grounds, due to the objections raised by the respondent, the petitioner has been ousted from service. 6. Ms.Anna Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner working as a daily wager in various departments from 210. 1958, and the petitioner is about 45 years and has absolutely no chance of getting employment elsewhere and action of the respondents 1 and 2 in terminating the services of the petitioner after a total service of 31 years, is totally unfair, illegal and arbitrary sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is action of the second respondent is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. learned counsel further submits that the reason given by the third respondent petitioner was appointed as a contingent staff with effect from 212. 1980 after date viz., 7. 1980, and therefore the petitioner’s service cannot be regularised, unsustainable, and the cut-off date fixed by the third respondent without any arbitrary. She further argues that the non-regularisation of the petitioner’s service 7. 1980 after date viz., 7. 1980, and therefore the petitioner’s service cannot be regularised, unsustainable, and the cut-off date fixed by the third respondent without any arbitrary. She further argues that the non-regularisation of the petitioner’s service 7. 1980 was not due to the fault of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner penalised. .7. Mr.P.Arivudainambi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third contends that the petitioner was not sponsored by the employment exchange, appointment was in violation of Rule 6(2) of the Board ’ s service Regulation. The Government Advocate further submits that cut-off date was fixed as 7. 1980 G.O.Ms.No.312, ES, dated 30.11.1987, and though the petitioner was appointed watchman only with effect from 212. 1980 by the then Regional Director, and the after the date fixed by the Government for regulating the irregular appointment 7. 1980, the petitioner ’ s services were terminated with effect from 18. 1989. circumstances, the order of termination of the services of the petitioner is valid and no arbitrariness in this case. After going through the files produced by the third and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate for the third respondent, and taking into consideration the respondents 1 and 2 have not been represented by any counsel, I am of the view petitioner will be entitled to the relief prayed for. 8. The facts are not in dispute. The only question to be considered in this case is whether G.O.Ms.No.312 LE dated 30.11.1987, which fixed 7. 1980 as the cut-off date taken into account while considering the order of termination of the services of the only ground, I could see from the file, is that the petitioner was appointed as with effect from 212. 1980 by the then Regional Deputy Director and this date fell date fixed by the Government for regulating the irregular appointment. i.e., 7. 1980, therefore the petitioner was ousted from service from 18. 1989. The file shows petitioner who was previously working on daily wages from 210. 1988 in soap Unit, was temporarily appointed as watchman from 212. 1980. It is seen from G.O.Ms.No.107, & AR, dated 2. i.e., 7. 1980, therefore the petitioner was ousted from service from 18. 1989. The file shows petitioner who was previously working on daily wages from 210. 1988 in soap Unit, was temporarily appointed as watchman from 212. 1980. It is seen from G.O.Ms.No.107, & AR, dated 2. 1987 that orders were issued to the Heads of Departments directing create posts to bring the contingent staff to regular establishment after a careful the need for the posts and to appoint a contingent staff in the post, if no relaxation involved. Since the petitioner has completed 5 years of service as watchman on the petitioner should have been brought into regular time scale of pay by relaxing 6(2) of the Boards Service Regulation relating to recruitment through Employment However, it has not been done so. Unfortunately the petitioner’s services regularised only on 212. 1980, which is put against the petitioner’s case now, according the third respondent. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the part of respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in view of G.O.Ms.No.107, P.& AR, dated 2. 1987, cannot stand in the way of the petitioner getting benefit said G.O. To put it in other words, the petitioner should not be penalised for committed by the respondents. As such, I am of the view that the petitioner’s serives be regularised even as early as 212. 1985 which had not been done. 10. Further, whether the cuit off date prescribed under the G.O. is valid is a question decided. That question has been decided by the Supreme Court in a decision reported D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 130: 1983 Lab.I.C. 1: (1983)1 S.C.C. (1983)1 Lab.L.J. 104: (1983)1 S.C.J. 188, wherein it has been held by the Supreme that any date fixed arbitrarily as cutoff date is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of It was held by the Supreme Court in that decision that "the fundamental principle is Art.14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question". case the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in D.R.Nim v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1301 under which "arbitrary date was fixed for the purpose of fixing seniority among the persons in the Indian Service. The Supreme Court in that case, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1301, held that" the Government cannot pick out a date from a hat and say that a period prior to that would be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within Proviso 2. 11. In this case, I do not find any rational nexus in fixing the date 7. 1980 as cut do not see any reason to fix the cut-off date as 7. 1980 and to oust the petitioner service. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, do not think the reason given by the respondents in the impugned order ousting petitioner from service can be sustained and the impugned order is set aside. respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner in any one of the vacant posts watchman from 18. 1989 on regular basis within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On application by the petitioner for back wages and other benefits, respondents will consider the same and pass orders according to Rules. The writ petition ordered accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed.