Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : This petition is by the four unfortunate petitioners who are all ladies. Out of them, the first petitioner is already dead and her legal representatives have already been brought on record. The petitioners were working in the College run by the second respondent as Sweepers. It seems that they were working for quite some time. The first petitioner was working there from 1957 while the other petitioners were working from early 70s. The College came under the sweep of the Private Colleges Regulations Act which Act came in the year 1976. The said Act prescribed the conditions of service of the teaching as well as non-teaching staff. It is the admitted position that this College receive 100% grant. It was the policy of the Government, which has reflected from the Government orders, that a staff working in the private college for five years as on 1-1-1979 as a contingent staff should get a permanent status and, thereafter, the said staff could be brought on the regular time scale. The salaries are payable by the Government fully to such staff. All the four petitioners, who belong to the Scheduled Castes, therefore, ordinarily could have been brought on the regular service by becoming permanent, because all of them have practically completed five years of service on 1-1-1979, and even if they had not, later on they were bound to be so brought on the regular establishment because of their continuous service. It seems that in spite of the several representations, they have neither been regularised nor been brought on the regular time scale of pay and are still working on the meager salaries. They have now approached this Court for a writ of mandamus to issue orders to regularise the services of the petitioners and then bring them on the regular time scale of pay prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Government with effect from 1-1-1979. They have also prayed for arrears of salary together with interest.It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Chandru that incessant efforts were being made in this direction. My attention was invited firstly to the fact that the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education had passed an order dated 14-8-1987 approving six posts of scavengers as per the prescribed norms which were fixed by G.O.Ms. No. 1699 Education dated 1-10-1977. Chandru that incessant efforts were being made in this direction. My attention was invited firstly to the fact that the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education had passed an order dated 14-8-1987 approving six posts of scavengers as per the prescribed norms which were fixed by G.O.Ms. No. 1699 Education dated 1-10-1977. My attention was then invited towards the fact that on 19-1-1988, the Regional Deputy Director directed the College to send the proposals like the petitioners who were employed on a continuous basis, and who were continuously serving for five years as on 1-1-1979. Two representations seem to have been made, one on 11-3-1991, and the other on 14-12-1992, wherein, the petitioners have brought along with necessary details like their date of birth, pay scale, and the date of appointment that they were entitled to be appointed permanently, and were also entitled to be brought on the regular time scale of pay. Petitioners'-counsel then invites my attention towards the letters sent by the Principal of the College dated 12-1-1993 and 1-2-1993, whereby, the Principal of the College had acknowledged the fact that the petitioners were working in the College as sweepers. Though in the first letter it is claimed that they were part-time employees and that there was no justification for the appointment as full time basis as there was no sufficient work, then it is also pointed out further that the persons have understated their age and, therefore, the management had directed them to produce the valid proof of their age. Very curiously enough, however, it was written in this letter that it was the policy of the management not to employ women employees as full time employees, and the management was prepared to appoint male sweepers on full time basis in the place of women sweepers.Two facts emerged from these letters are, firstly, that the employees had at least stated their age, because otherwise the management could not come to the conclusion that the women employees had understated their age and secondly, there is a couched admission that the management required the services of the male sweepers on full time basis. There is also a letter on the record, whereby, the University Grants Commission has written to the Principal in reply to his aforementioned letter dated 12-1-1993 that there could be no such policy of employing only male employees. There is also a letter on the record, whereby, the University Grants Commission has written to the Principal in reply to his aforementioned letter dated 12-1-1993 that there could be no such policy of employing only male employees. The Under Secretary of the University Grants Commission proceeds to write as under : "In view of this position, the College is requested to fill up the vacancies of Sweepers on permanent basis and eligible candidates who are already working in the College as part-time sweepers may be considered for appointment on permanent basis, irrespective of caste, creed or sex." The Secretary of the College, by his letter dated 16-3-1993 then proceeded to write that he had absolutely no objection to regularise the services of the part-time sweepers as full-time employees, and further contended that the College had already sent proposals to regularise the services of the two sweepers viz., Tmt. Thangammal and Tmt. Janaki as full-time employees, and that the said proposal was sent on 25-2-1993. As regards others, the Secretary proceeds to inform that the other Sweepers have been directed to produce their birth certificate to proceed further in the matter, meaning thereby, the College did not have objection to send the names of the remaining two lady employees, provided, they were otherwise qualified because of their age. Curiously enough, in the same letter however, the College also pressed the claim for regularisation of the services of two more scavengers viz., Mr. Sundararajan and Mr. Venkatesan. The last sentence in this letter reads thus : "We request you to kindly consider our long-standing proposal to regularise the services of the aforesaid the scavengers as full-time employees." All this obviously happened in 1993. The Principal then seems to have written to the Secretary, University Grants Commission informing him of the steps taken for the regularisation of the services of the part-time sweepers as the full-time employees. The matters stand here, and are stonewalled because nothing seems to have happened thereafter. When I confronted the learned Government Pleader on this issue, the learned Government pleader had only one answer to give, i.e., that there was no proposal sent by the College in that behalf. The matters stand here, and are stonewalled because nothing seems to have happened thereafter. When I confronted the learned Government Pleader on this issue, the learned Government pleader had only one answer to give, i.e., that there was no proposal sent by the College in that behalf. I have on record the say of the College, wherein, the College claims that the proposals in respect of the two employees have already been sent, and that the other two employees were asked to give the proof regarding their age, so as to enable the College to send their proposals. Therefore, one thing is certain that the first respondent did not and does not seem to have any objection about sending the names. Learned counsel very fairly submitted before me that if the details regarding the age etc. are supplied, he would still forward the letter to the Government for the regularisation. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-Mr. Chandru assured the Court that the other remaining two petitioners would also be giving the proof regarding their age to the College Management, so as to enable it to forward the proposal for regularisation. Learned Government Pleader however, submitted that it should not be understood that all the petitioners would be entitled to the regularisation per se on the basis of the facts so stated. He pointed out that the petitioners were not being paid the salary at the fixed rates and, therefore, the petitioners could not come within the parameters of the G.O.Ms. 480 dated 22-3-1979. It will be seen that even if the petitioners do not come within the parameters of G.O.Ms. 480, merely because they are not being paid at the rates fixed by the District Collector, still the petitioners would have a right to be considered and to be brought on the regular pay scale, for the simple reason, that the petitioners have been continuously working as a contingent staff and as a regular staff in the College right from the inception of the Act i.e., 1976 and even before that. Their continuous service for more than two years itself would enable them to claim the permanency. It is nobody's case that the petitioners are not actually working. The College also accepts their claim that they are working prior to the advent of the Act, and now they have continuously worked for 28 years. Their continuous service for more than two years itself would enable them to claim the permanency. It is nobody's case that the petitioners are not actually working. The College also accepts their claim that they are working prior to the advent of the Act, and now they have continuously worked for 28 years. If this working does not give them the right, then there would be no provision to give them the right of permanency. In my opinion, they are clearly entitled to be brought on the regular establishment. It is not the case of the management that some other workers are working and that these persons are surplus staff. If the petitioners are working regularly for last over 25 years, they were bound to be brought on regular establishment. Once they come on the regular establishment, they would also be entitled to be brought on the regular time scale of pay, and instead of languishing on the meager salary paid to them, they would be entitled to be paid as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.The only difficulty on the part of the Government seemed to be that there were no properly drafted proposal with details. Learned counsel for the management very fairly promises to supply those details by way of the recommendations. Therefore, there would be no necessity for me to issue any directions in that behalf. The petitioners, therefore, succeed. The petitioners shall supply the management with necessary papers within one month from today and the management shall send their recommendations for regularisation etc. within one month thereafter. The Government shall consider the whole claim within two months thereafter. In the meantime, unfortunately the first petitioner has died and her legal representatives are on record. When the first petitioner is brought on regular pay scale, she would be certainly entitled to the same monetary benefits. The monetary benefits shall be payable to the legal heirs as per the Rules. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 21804 of 1993 is dismissed.