Judgment :- 1. All the petitioners were appointed as Section Writers through Employment Exchange on daily wages basis. Out of 26 petitioners, some of them retired and rest of them are still in service. 2. Though they have put their entire life in the respondents Department, their services were not regularised by the respondent inspite of several directions in various Original Applications filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The fact remains that the petitioners are all paid only Rs.88/-per day. After retirement from service, they are not even getting pension. 3. The learned counsel, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were working as Section Writers discharging the similar work as Graduate Tabulators in Directorare of Technical Education. Though their working hours are from 10 am to 5pm, they used to leave the office at 7 pm almost every day. In the evening, they have been literally doing the work of the second respondent, namely, Directorate of Government Examinations. Almost 10 to 13 lakhs of students are appearing for the 10th and 12th standard public examinations, their question papers, issuance of mark sheets are all time bound work which should be cleared by the petitioners. But, yet the respondent did not come forward to create any permanent post by regularising the services of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed O.A.No.6048 of 1992 seeking the prayer for regularisation of their services and put them in appropriate time scale of pay. The learned Tribunal, by its order dated 18.06.1993 directed the respondent that 30% of the peak employment or 75 posts may be regularly sanctioned in the first instance pending further examination of the work load in the organisation. 4. Following the said order, the first respondent issued G.O.No.156 dated 07.03.94 creating 75 posts to be filed on the basis of seniority. But, unfortunately, again the petitioner could not get into the above said 75 posts of Section Writers. Though some of the senior Section Writers were able to receive the benefit of the said order, most of the petitioners could not get the benefit. Therefore, the rest of the Section Writers filed another O.A. 1423 of 1994 seeking regularisation in consonance with the G.O.No.156. 5. The learned Tribunal also directed the respondent to recruit the staff and increase the number of posts and fill it up accordingly. Therefore, the rest of the Section Writers filed another O.A. 1423 of 1994 seeking regularisation in consonance with the G.O.No.156. 5. The learned Tribunal also directed the respondent to recruit the staff and increase the number of posts and fill it up accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order passed in O.A.No.1439 of 1994, the first respondent filed an appeal No.12103 of 1995. The Honourable Apex court dismissed it confirming the order passed in O.A.No.1439 of 1994. 6. Subsequently, the respondents have come forward to send the recommendation, recommending the case of the petitioners for regularisation. Inspite of the recommendation made by the third respondent herein, along with the order passed by this tribunal in O.A.No.410 of 2004, giving direction to the Government to consider the proposal and pass orders as early as possible, the respondent Department have not come forward to confer the benefit of regularisation till now. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a prayer to regularise the service of the petitioners in the post of Section Writers or Junior Assistant with effect from 03.01.1998 on the date on which the third respondent recommended regularisation of the petitioners in the third respondent Department to the government and also to count the service on the basis of daily wages and all other consequential benefits. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the plight of the petitioners have already been looked into by the respondent Department on the basis of the order passed by the tribunal in O.A.No.410 of 2004. Therefore, the file is already in the hands of the Government waiting serious consideration by the Government. If suitable direction is given, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 9. All the persons were appointed in the third respondent Department as Section Writers from 1986 for the purpose of doing the regular work of regular employee in the second respondent, namely, the Directorate of the Government Examination though they were appointed on daily wages basis, the affidavit filed by the petitioners would show that they have been working regularly from 10 am to 7 pm but they have not been recommended by the respondent. Counter affidavit states that for the purpose of clearing time bound work, namely, the issuance of mark sheets, certificates for those students appearing for 10th and 12th public examinations, the services of the petitioners are utilised but without regularisation, for quite a long time. Since, the petitioners were working for decades with the meager daily wage of Rs.88/-, they filed their applications before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.6048 of 1992 seeking regularisation of their services and the learned tribunal by its order dated 18.06.1993 directed the respondents that 30% of the employment or 75 posts may be regularly sanctioned keeping in mind the regular examination of work lead in the organisation. 10. At the first instance on the direction of the Tribunal, some of them have got the benefit and some of them could not get the benefit of the regularisation. Therefore, another O.A.No.1423 of 1994 came to be filed seeking the benefit of regularisation on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 07.03.1994, again the Tribunal while approving the 75 posts of Section Writers, directed the respondents to review the staff recruitment periodically and increase the number of posts and fill up the same. The first respondent, being aggrieved by the order passed by the tribunal in O.A.No.1423 of 1994, went in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Honourable Apex Court, while confirming the order passed by the tribunal in O.A.No.1423 of 1995, dismissed the SLP filed by the first respondent and thereby the direction given by the tribunal reached finality. Subsequently, again the petitioners were forced to file O.A.No.410 of 2004 seeking a direction to the Government to consider the proposal and pass appropriate orders as early as possible. In the meanwhile, the third respondent, Directorate of Government Examination, after considering the plight of the petitioners working indefinitely for a long time, recommended the case of the petitioners for regularisation by proceedings No.022302/E2-1/98 dated 03.11.1998, wherein the third respondent has specifically mentioned that it is pertinent that many of the Section Writers have crossed 50 years of age and some of them are married and have children and have the responsibility to maintain their families. On that basis, the third respondent requested the Government that the present Section Writers may be absorbed in the same category on regular time scale of pay as that of Record Clerks in the Administrative Department and also requested the Government to regularise their services. 11. Admittedly, the above said recommendation was made about 12 years ago. Till now, the Government have not come forward to even consider the recommendation made by the Directorate of Government Examination. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are all discharging work meant for permanent employees as they are employed for the purpose of clearing students mark sheets and certificates, who are appearing for 10th and 12th standards public examinations which is a regular work. In view of this, there has been increase in work load, which also indicates that the respondents could have created the permanent posts and regularised the services atleast in the year 1998 as per the recommendation made by the third respondent. 12. In support of his submission, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also took me through the judgment of Apex court saying that even if the recommendation made by the third respondent is accepted, the petitioner would be getting only a limited pension. Therefore, while giving direction for regularisation of the service of the petitioner, since the petitioners have rendered services from the year 1986, they are entitled to have that period counted for the purpose of pension. In this connection, a judgment of the Apex Court reported of 2001 (10) SCC 473 also holds that the entire period of service rendered by the employee is required to be counted for the purpose of pension. In the light of the Judgment, this Court, while directing the Government to accept the recommendation made by the third respondent for the purpose of regularisation of the petitioners services, since the amount of pension would be very less, even if the services are regularised from the year 1998 for the purpose of pension benefit, this Court further directs the respondents to consider the counting of the period of temporary services rendered by the petitioners from 1986 for the purpose of counting their pensionable service and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.