Judgment :- The petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 211. 2004 passed by the first respondent confirming the second respondent’s Order dated 19.07.2004, and prayed for a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioner as Regular Helper with effect from 210. 1999. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he joined as contract labour in North Chennai Thermal Power Station in Civil Maintenance on contract basis under various contractors. Since the petitioner was continuously working, he was fully equipped to hold that post. On the basis of the representation made by the unions, the Electricity Board decided to absorb contract labourers, who have completed 480 days as on 30.04.1999 and issued B.P. (FB).No.17 dated 28.04.1999. As per the board Circular, the petitioner was issued individual contract labour entry pass. Petitioner’s seniority number was 34, as per the list prepared by the committee appointed in this regard. While verification of records in May 1999, the petitioner’s certificate found to be bogus and the petitioner was not absorbed. On the ground of furnishing bogus certificate, similarly placed persons were absorbed on 210. 1999 and the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner made representations to the respondent on 21.03.2003 and finally on 30.03.2004. Pursuant to the order passed in the Writ Petition Nos.11991, 11995, 11202, 11201, 11994, 11996, 11200, 11992, 11999, 11993 of 2004 respectively filed by the petitioner, the petitioner’s representation was considered and his request was rejected by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent which is challenged before this Court. 4. The Electricity Board has filed counter affidavit. In paragraph-12 of the Counter Affidavit it is stated that the Board Proceedings dated 011. 2002 related to those who are already absorbed as helpers and subsequently suspended or removed from service due to production of Bogus School Certificate and to reinstate them in Board’s service. It is further stated that the above Board Proceeding (B.P.) dated 011. 2002 is not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner was stopped from work as contract labourer before giving any appointment due to production of Bogus School Certificate and he was not given any appointment order. 5. It is further stated that the above Board Proceeding (B.P.) dated 011. 2002 is not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner was stopped from work as contract labourer before giving any appointment due to production of Bogus School Certificate and he was not given any appointment order. 5. It is seen from the averments made by the petitioner that he was identified as beneficiary in the Board Proceeding on 05.01.1998 and he was given individual contract labour entry pass and the committee also identified the petitioner as one of the beneficiaries and he was included in the seniority list to be absorbed by the board. However, due to production of bogus certificate, the petitioner was not considered, in view of the contention of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that the petitioner was stopped even before the absorption to service. Apart from that in similar circumstances, the Madurai bench of this Court in Writ Appeal (MD) No.6 of 2009 extended the benefit by the Board Proceeding, to a similarly placed that of the petitioner. In paragraphs four and five of the Judgment are extract hereunder: “4. Having perused the above referred to B.P., in particular paragraph No.4, we are not in a position to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the Board. In Paragraph 4, apart from referring to the cases of removal/dismissal which were dealt with by this Court in writ proceedings, there is also a reference to other contract labourers whose services also came to be dismissed or removed and in respect of whom representations were received by the Board. Therefore, the Full Board took a conscious decision not to be very severe in respect of acquisition of qualification for the jobs such as Helpers/Wireman, in respect of the contract labourers. Therefore, such benefit was extended by way of relaxation not to throw out contract labourers, who were inducted to regular services of the Board, solely on the ground of production of bogus certificate. The said benefit was conferred on all the employees who were placed identically, whether they had approached this Court earlier or not. 5. We are convinced that the said Board Proceedings should be made applicable in respect of all those contract employees whose services came to be terminated on the ground of production of bogus certificates. The said benefit was conferred on all the employees who were placed identically, whether they had approached this Court earlier or not. 5. We are convinced that the said Board Proceedings should be made applicable in respect of all those contract employees whose services came to be terminated on the ground of production of bogus certificates. The respondent is also one such contract employee, who came to be inducted as a regular employee by the order dated 11.02.2000, which service came to be terminated by the order dated 25.03.2000 solely on the ground that he produced a bogus certificate. Therefore, by virtue of the benefit granted under B.P. (FB).No.27, dated 011. 2002, the respondent is also entitled to be re-inducted into service, in the same manner in which the services of similarly placed employees came to be restored.” 6. Mr. V. Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a Judgment of this Court. While allowing the Writ Petition No.7509 of 2002, filed by the similarly placed persons this Court directed the petitioner, therein, deemed to have been appointed as helper under the Board with effect from 210. 1999. The learned senior counsel also represented that the order was passed in a similar circumstance of the case and the benefit given in Writ Petition No.7509 of 2002 may also be extended to the petitioner, as the petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed as helper under the Board with effect from 210. 2009. 7. In view of the categorical pronouncement by the Division Bench of this Court, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There will be no order as to costs.