Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1228/E1 dated 3.11.2008 and to direct the Respondent to appoint the Petitioner in any post in Arani Municipality as per G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 27.5.1999. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee in Arani Municipality in the year 1995 and has been doing all the works relating to the post of Office Assistant and has put in nearly 15 years of service. While so, the Government has periodically issued Government Order for regularising the services of the causal employees and two set of G.Os. (i) G.O.Ms.No.198, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 26.10.1998, and (ii) G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.5.1999 are passed and as per the earlier G.O. the entry level post shall be filled up from and among the daily wage employees for one year on consolidated pay and it shall be periodically renewed for three years based on performance and with regularisation of service after completion of three years in the regular time scale of pay. Whereas, G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 27.5.1999 has laid down further guidelines regarding regularisation of the appointment of daily wage employees from the date of their appointment. 3. The Petitioner herein has now made his claim mainly based on G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 27.5.1999 copy of which enclosed at page 36 of the typed set of papers. As per the G.O., the list of persons working prior to 1.10.1996 on daily wages in every municipality should be prepared and sent to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration and the Municipality concerned shall fill up the entry level post based on the educational qualification from and among the persons in the list on consolidated pay for a period of one year and thereafter, they should be brought to time scale of pay and till all the persons in the list are appointed, no appointment shall be made through employment exchange. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been continuously working much prior to the cut off date i.e. 1.10.1996. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been continuously working much prior to the cut off date i.e. 1.10.1996. on the date and after this G.O.Ms.No.125 as daily wage employee and is, thus, entitled to the benefit of regularisation based on the said G.O. Such claim of the Petitioner is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader mainly on the ground that the Petitioner was not in employment of Arani Municipality on the date of issuance of G.O. dated 27.5.1999. 5. I have heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the records available on record. 6. The facts that the Petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee during 1995 in Arani Municipality and has been continuously working therein prior to 1.10.1996 is not denied. What is denied herein is that the Petitioner was not in employment from 1.6.1999 to 27.5.1999 from the date on which G.O.Ms.No.125 was issued by the Government. Thus, the short point that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the Petitioner was out of employment on the date of issuance of G.O., and whether he is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.5.1999 or not. 7. The Petitioner has no earlier occasion approached this Court in W.P.No.5526 of 2008 for similar direction to the Respondent to appoint him in any post in Arani Municipality as per G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.5.1999 and the Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 28.8.2008 with direction issued to the Petitioner to send a detailed representation enclosing the relevant particulars of his employment within one week to the Commissioner, Arani Municipality with further direction to the Commissioner, Arani Municipality to consider the same in the light of G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.5.1999 and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. Before doing so, the learned Single Judge had proceeded to deal with the issue as to whether the persons concerned seeking such benefit should be in employment from 1.10.1996 to 27.5.1999 or not. While answering this issue, the learned Single Judge has observed that the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent could not point out the persons concerned should be in employment from 1.10.1996 to 27.5.1999 and the G.O. merely states that the persons concerned shall be in employment as on 1.10.1996. While answering this issue, the learned Single Judge has observed that the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent could not point out the persons concerned should be in employment from 1.10.1996 to 27.5.1999 and the G.O. merely states that the persons concerned shall be in employment as on 1.10.1996. By observing so the learned Single Judge of our High Court proceeded to direct the First Respondent therein to consider the case of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The outcome of which is the impugned order, in and under which the petitioner’s claim for employment in Arani Municipality is rejected on the ground of his non-employment from 1.10.1996 to 27.5.1999. 8. The Petitioner has in support of his claim enclosed the copy of the order dated 20.6.2002 in W.P.No.11953 of 1995 at page 40 of the typed set of papers. Though the Writ Petition was filed during 1995 by group of employees for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners therein brought it to the notice of the Court about the present G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.5.1999 issued during the pendency of the Writ Petition and about the representation given by the Petitioners based on the said G.O. and the recommendation given by the Respondent recommending the names of all the Petitioners except the First Petitioner for appointment upon the future vacancy arises in the Respondent’s office and based on their representation, the learned Single Judge is pleased to extend the benefit of G.O. to the First Petitioner also and to give further direction to the Government to pass appropriate orders in respect of all the Petitioners. 9. The reading of the order enclosed at pages 40 and 41 of the typed set of papers reveals that the benefit of the G.O. is extended to those employees who was in service as on 31.12.1996. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would replying upon the documents regarding the employment of the Petitioner till 1999 enclosed at pages 1 to 33 of the typed set of papers, contend that as the Petitioner was also in service till November 1999, he is entitled to be considered for appointment on regular basis. As a matter of fact, the same view is also expressed by our High Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.5526 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner herein. As a matter of fact, the same view is also expressed by our High Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.5526 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner herein. Our High Court has on earlier occasion specifically directed the First Respondent therein to consider the case of the Petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.5.1999, but the Respondent has failed to properly consider the Petitioner’s claim and simply rejected it on the ground that he was not continuously in employment on the date of G.O. and has passed the order on 3.11.2008 which is impugned herein. As the impugned order is based on factually incorrect particulars, the same is liable to be dismissed. In my opinion, the impugned order so passed is also contrary to the direction and observation made by our High Court in the earlier Writ Petitions. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the First Respondent is directed to consider the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the documents with regard to his employment on daily wages for the period from October 1996 to November 1999 and in the light of the order dated 20.6.2002 made in W.P.No.11953 of 1995 and in the light of the order dated 28.8.2008 in W.P.No.5526 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner herein and also in the light of the discussion of this Court as to how the Petitioner is eligible for appointment on regular basis as per G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.5.1999 within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.