Judgment :- The petitioners five in number have brought forth this writ petition for a writ of mandamus to issue a direction to the first respondent to regularly absorb the petitioners as drivers with due seniority over any new appointee with all other attendant benefits. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. The short facts with which the petitioners HAVE approached this Court for a writ, are as follows: They have challenged in this petition, the action of the respondents in proceeding to fill up the post of drivers by recruiting ex-servicemen without first regularizing them. The petitioners possess heavy vehicle driving license, and they joined the service on 11. 1997 as daily wage drivers with the first respondent municipality. They were engaged by the first respondent to drive water lorries, garbage carrying lorries, jeeps and cars maintained by the Municipality. They have been continuously discharging their duties as drivers for more than 8 years in the past without any blemish in their service. They work continuously for six days of a week and Sunday is an unpaid holiday. They were paid at the rate of Rs.124/- per day, and it was paid at the end of the month. Their signatures were obtained on the payment vouchers then and there. Their services have not been regularized despite the representations. Under the circumstances, they filed WP No.5147/2000 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent municipality to formulate a scheme to regularize their services on the basis of seniority. That writ petition was pending at that time. At the time when the said writ petition was taken up for consideration, an interim order came to be passed by this Court. Then, the petitioner approached the Labour Inspector, Thiruvallur, who is the competent authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981, and he has also passed orders in their favour. While the matter was pending, the first respondent filed WP No.19643/2001 challenging the said order dated 3. 2001, by the Labour Inspector referred to above, and sought for the stay of the said order. That writ petition was admitted by this Court. Thereafter WPMP No.8930/2001 came up for hearing before this Court on 18. While the matter was pending, the first respondent filed WP No.19643/2001 challenging the said order dated 3. 2001, by the Labour Inspector referred to above, and sought for the stay of the said order. That writ petition was admitted by this Court. Thereafter WPMP No.8930/2001 came up for hearing before this Court on 18. 2002, and this Court recorded the statement made by the first respondent that steps have been taken to regularize their services as and when the vacancies arose and dismissed the said petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that now, there are 11 vacancies for the post of heavy vehicle drivers available with the first respondent municipality; but, they have not taken any steps in order to fill up the vacancies by filling the names of the petitioners herein; that the first respondent has passed an order dated 12. 2005, calling nearly 100 candidates who are ex-servicemen, for an interview; that the same was held on 3. 2005 to fill up the post of drivers on daily wage basis; and that under such circumstances, it has become necessary for the petitioners to approach this Court by way of this writ petition for a writ of mandamus. 5. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the first respondent municipality. According to him, necessary proposals were sent to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Madras, the second respondent herein, seeking the approval for appointment of these petitioners in order to fill up the vacancies. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that now, the matter is placed before the Secretary to Government for necessary orders; and that after the orders are passed, the third respondent, the Commissioner of Municipal Administration could permit or pass suitable orders enabling the first respondent Municipality to fill up the vacancies by observing the petitioners herein in the regular vacancies. 7. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not in controversy that these five petitioners were put in service on daily wages, and they have been working continuously for more than a decade. Originally, there was a writ petition filed seeking for regularization of service, wherein an undertaking was given by the Municipality that steps will be taken to regularize them whenever the vacancies have arisen. It is not in controversy that these five petitioners were put in service on daily wages, and they have been working continuously for more than a decade. Originally, there was a writ petition filed seeking for regularization of service, wherein an undertaking was given by the Municipality that steps will be taken to regularize them whenever the vacancies have arisen. It is also not in controversy that there are number of vacancies available in the first respondent Municipality, and therefore, there cannot be any impediment for filling up the vacancies by regularizing their services. It was contended on the side of the first respondent Municipality that the proposals were actually forwarded to the third respondent Commissioner, Municipal Administration on 8. 2002. At that juncture, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3 wanted to get better instructions on the last few hearings and hence it was adjourned. 9. Now, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that it is true that the proposals from the first respondent Municipality were received by the third respondent, and it is pending consideration for the past five years. In view of the fact that the ban was in force, and it was lifted in the year 2006, it has got to be considered. Added further the learned Additional Government Pleader that the proposals have got to be ordered and decision has got to be taken by the Municipal Administration, the third respondent herein, and thereafter it has got to be forwarded to the second respondent, the State Government. 10. After hearing the submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that while it is an admitted position that the proposal forwarded by the first respondent Municipality to absorb them as Drivers in the available vacancy, is pending in the hands of the third respondent, Municipal Administration, no further delay could be caused. In order to avoid the avoidable delay, since sufficient delay is noticed in the past, both respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the proposals and pass suitable orders within a period of twelve weeks herefrom. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected WPMPs are closed.