Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.859 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition before this Court. 2. The petitioner is a Prison Warder in Saidapet Sub-Jail since 10.02.1983. She was recruited through Employment Exchange. The duty of the petitioner is to guard the female detenues in the Saidapet Sub-Jail and to escort them to the Courts and hospitals whenever necessary. It is stated that since there are always female prisoners in the Sub-Jail, the work of the petitioner is permanent and perennial nature and she reports for duties on all the seven days of the week. She made a representation dated 24.08.1998 to the Honourable Chief Ministers, seeking regularisation of her services. A reply dated 110. 1998 was given by the third respondent stating that the matter of regularisation of her services is pending consideration by the Government in file No.31756/C2/97. Since no order was passed by the first respondent, regularising her services, she filed Original Application in O.A.No.859 of 2002 (W.P.No.9331 of 2007) praying for regularisation of her services. 3. Heard Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The respondents filed reply affidavit stating that since the petitioner was a daily wages employee, she is not entitled to seek regularisation. This is the crux of the reply affidavit. However, it is stated as follows in para 4 of the reply affidavit: "Moreover the proposal submitted to the Government for the regularisation of the post of temporary female escort warders by the Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai was deferred by the Government in letter No.31756/C2/1997, dated 14.09.2000 pointing out that there is a ban on creation of new posts". 5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for deferring the matter due to the ban on recruitment by the Government for sometime and the ban was lifted subsequently. He further submits that the ban on recruitment being lifted, there is no reason for the first respondent, for not passing an appropriate order regularising the services of the petitioner. 6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the matter is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.No.2048 of 1987, wherein regularisation of service was ordered for 125 female warders. 6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the matter is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.No.2048 of 1987, wherein regularisation of service was ordered for 125 female warders. In the said matter, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.2617, Home (Prisons-II) Department, dated 012. 1988, regularising the services of 125 female warders, relaxing the rule relating to method of recruitment through Employment Exchange and also the rule relating to the educational qualification. 7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice to the said G.O.Ms.No.2617,which is enclosed in the typed set of papers. 8. I have perused the said Government Order. I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit as extended to those 125 female warders as per G.O.Ms.No.2617, Home (Prisons -II) Department, dated 012. 1988 of the first respondent. The said G.O.Ms.No.2617 is extracted here-under: "In G.O.Ms.No.1091, Home dated 24. 1957, the Commr. of Police, Madras was empowered to appoint Women Warders for the purpose of escorting Women Prisoners to the Special Prison for Women, Vellore, when they are committed direct to that Jail by Court in the City of Madras and this power has subsequently been delegated to the Asst. Commr. of Police, Armed Reserve, Madras in the G.O. second read above. Accordingly, some persons were employed on daily wages basis as and when they were put on duty of escorting women prisoners. 2. One hundred and twenty five such persons filed Writ Petition No.2048/87 on the file of the High Court Madras to regularise their services, with reference to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel) Department dated 2. 1987. In that Writ Petition the High Court directed that the regularisation of the services of the members of the petitioner Association be considered since it is not desirable to keep such persons on daily rated basis, more so, they being women and to pass necessary orders before 35. 87. The above direction of the High Court was examined by the Government carefully. Since, the female escort Warders engaged by the Madras City Police are employed on daily basis only as and when there is need for them, they will not come under contingent establishment. Hence, their request for regularisation of services were rejected in G.O.Ms.No.1257 Home, dated 25. 1987. 3. Since, the female escort Warders engaged by the Madras City Police are employed on daily basis only as and when there is need for them, they will not come under contingent establishment. Hence, their request for regularisation of services were rejected in G.O.Ms.No.1257 Home, dated 25. 1987. 3. Subsequently the Women Warders filed contempt Application No.123/87 on the file of the High Court Madras. The Court directed that the respondents shall explore every possible means to see that the 125 persons whose names agreeable to the Learned Additional Government Pleader be appointed as Women Warders at the earliest. 4. The Government have examined the above directions of the High Court. It is reported that the 125 female warders have been employed for years on daily wages basis. The Commissioner of Police had already reported that many of those 125 persons are illiterate and know only to put their signature and majority of them are overaged. If they are to be appointed as Women Warders they should possess qualifications like age, educational qualifications and method of recruitment through the Employment exchange. If the above qualifications are prescribed for their absorption many of the 125 persons may be found ineligible for absorption on a regular basis. However on humanitarian grounds it has been decided to absorb the 125 people who are paid daily wages into regular establishment as "Ayah" (as their main work is to take the prisoners to Courts, Hospitals etc.) in relaxation of Rule 4(a) relating to method of recruitment through the Employment Exchange and Rule 5(2) relating to the educational qualification of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. 5. Sanction is accorded for the creation of 125 posts of (One hundred and twenty five only) Ayahs in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service in the Police Department in the scale of pay of Rs.450-10-570-15-720 upto 312. 1989 in order to bring the services of the 125 incumbents detailed in the annexure to this order into regular establishment with effect from the persons mentioned in the annexure to this Order resign / retire / die. 6. The expenditure should be debited to the relevant sub-heads under "2055 A 00 Police". 7. The expenditure constituteson item of "New Service" and approval of the Parliament will be obtained in due course. 6. The expenditure should be debited to the relevant sub-heads under "2055 A 00 Police". 7. The expenditure constituteson item of "New Service" and approval of the Parliament will be obtained in due course. Pending approval of the Parliament, the expenditure will initially be met from the contingency Fund orders regarding which will issue from the Finance (BG.1) Department receipt of necessary application from the Commissioner of Police, Madras together with a copy of this order. 8. In exercise of the powers conferred by rules 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, contained in Part II of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual, Volume I of 1977, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes rule 4(a) relating to recruitment through the Employment Exchange and Rule 5(2) relating to Educational Qualification of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Basic Service in favour of the 125 incumbents mentioned in the annexure to this order, so as to bring all the 125 incumbents into regular establishment as "Ayah" with effect from the date of this order. 9. This order issued with the concurrence of the Labour and Employment department vide its U.O.No.75650/A E 2 /88-1 dated 12. 1988 and of the Finance department vide its U.O.No.1020/DS(CVK)/88-1 dated 12. 1988". 9. In fact, the petitioner has stated in ground (iii) in the application that she is entitled to regularisation, as per the order of this Court in W.P.No.2048 of 1987 and the consequent G.O.Ms.No.2617, dated 012. 1988 of the first respondent, implementing the order of this Court. In the reply affidavit, there is no mention about the judgment of this Court as well as G.O.Ms.No.2617. Furthermore, as stated above, the second respondent recommended for the regularisation of the services of the petitioner as admitted by the respondents in the reply affidavit. 10. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in service from 1983, for the past 26 years, and she was 45 years old at the time of filing the Original Application. The learned Senior counsel further submits that though the petitioner prayed for regularisation from the date of appointment viz., 10.02.1983 with all consequent attendant benefits, the petitioner will be satisfied if she is regularised from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. From 21.01.2002, with notional benefits. 11. The learned Senior counsel further submits that though the petitioner prayed for regularisation from the date of appointment viz., 10.02.1983 with all consequent attendant benefits, the petitioner will be satisfied if she is regularised from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. From 21.01.2002, with notional benefits. 11. The claim of the petitioner is perfectly justified since the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.2617 on 012. 1988, regularising the services of 125 female warders, who were similarly situated like that of the petitioner. In fact, those warders were not even recruited through Employment Exchange and the Government thought fit to relax the rule for their regularisation. In the present case, the petitioner was recruited through Employment Exchange. Though the petitioner is justified in asking regularisation as was done to others as per G.O.Ms.No.2617, the petitioner confines her prayer from the date of filing of Original Application. 12. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner as done in the case of 125 female warders in G.O.Ms.No.2617 dated 012. 1988, with effect from the date of filing of the Original Application and to grant the benefits notionally from the date of regularisation. The first respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.