S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are filed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court. As common question of law is involved in these two appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order. The writ petitioners-respondents herein filed the writ petition seeking a writ of or in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the appellants herein in not regularising their services as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The fact in the matter, however, is noticed from Writ Appeal No. 536 of 2001. The first respondent was appointed as a full time contingent employee in class IV service in the year 1990. He was promoted as shroff on 3-12-1990 and subsequently as junior Assistant from 1-11-1997. It is stated in their writ application that the 3rd respondent herein was appointed as junior assistant in the year 1995 and his service were regularised by order of this court pursuant to the scheme bearing g. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 although their services had not been regularised. Allegedly the appellants admitted that the first petitioner was entitled to be regularised in services with effect from 25-11-1993 in the cadre of Shroff. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned he was posted as a full time employee on 3-12-1990 and he was promoted as Driver in superior service in a clear vacancy and posted as Jeep Driver on 31-10-1997. But his services had not been regularised. On the other hand, the services of the 5th respondent had been regularised. According to the appellants the said respondent was entitled to be regularised only from the year 1995. The learned Judge directed: in the result, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of both the petitioners in Class IV services in which they are working by the time the G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 came into force and the inter se seniority between the employees whose services were regularised pursuant to the orders of this court as well as the petitioners have to be refixed as per the length of the service they have put in as on 25-11-1993. Consequent upon the regularisation of their services, the petitioners are entitled to get terminal, pensionary benefits and other attendance benefits on par with the regular employees. Consequent upon the regularisation of their services, the petitioners are entitled to get terminal, pensionary benefits and other attendance benefits on par with the regular employees. At the same time, the monetary benefits for both the petitioners in the cadre in which their services are going to be regularised are limited from the date of filing of the writ petition. It is needless to observe that the regularisation orders have to be given to the petitioners in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 duly observing the rule of reservation in favour of the reserved categories of employees. The respondents have to give the regularisation orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and eight weeks time is given to the respondents to pay the difference in wages to the petitioners thereafter. ( 2 ) IT appears that the appellants herein did not place before the learned single Judge the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 as amended by Act 27 of 1998. ( 3 ) IN District Collector v. ML Singh, 1998 (2) ALT 5 (SC), the Apex Court while upholding G. O. Ms. No. 212 held that the conditions thereto must be strictly complied with, ( 4 ) THE effect of Act 27 of 1998 had been considered in our decision in WA no. 366 of 2001 and batch, disposed of on 27-4-2001. ( 5 ) WE, therefore, in modification of the order passed by the learned single judge direct that the matter should be considered by the appellants in the light of the afore-mentioned decision keeping in view the fact as to whether there existed any clear vacancies when G. O. Ms. No. 212 came into force or not. The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.