Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to grant regularisation to the petitioners from earlier date, i.e., after the completion of five years of service by the petitioners. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners were appointed on contingency basis as Watchmen. The services of the petitioners were regularised by the first respondent along with 47 similarly situated contingency staff by G.O.Ms.No.204, (AAIV) Department dated 18.03.1991. 3. According to the petitioners, 11 out of 51 persons approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2677 of 1991 and prayed for a direction to the respondents to modify the order dated 18.03.1991 and regularise their service with effect from the date of their initial appointment by relying on G.O.Ms.No.52, Finance Department dated 14.01.1977, as per which, on completion of five years of service, their services are bound to be regularised. The Tribunal by order dated 22.11.1993, directed the respondents herein to regularise the services of the said 11 persons on their completion of five years of contingent service instead from the date of G.O.Ms.No.204 (AAIV) dated 18.03.1991, with all consequential benefits. Since, the said order was implemented by the respondents insofar as the said 11 persons are concerned, the similarly placed four watchmen submitted a representation seeking the same benefit, i.e., prayed for regularisation on their completion of five years of contingent service as that of the 11 persons, who filed the original application and got orders. The said request was rejected on the ground that the said direction issued by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is applicable only to the petitioners in that original application and the similarly placed watchmen cannot be given the said benefit. 4. The said order of rejection is challenged before this Court in the writ petition in W.P.No.29501 of 2004 by the petitioners therein, and the said writ petition was allowed on the ground that, they are also similarly placed like the other 11 persons and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has passed an order, which was also implemented by the respondents. The respondents cannot discriminate the petitioners therein when facts of their case as well as the case of the said applicants are one and the same. 5. The respondents cannot discriminate the petitioners therein when facts of their case as well as the case of the said applicants are one and the same. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that in the decision reported in 2006 Writ Law Reported 327 (N.S.Balasubramanian and 18 others vs. Food Corporation of India rep.by the Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi and two others) this Court has taken a similar decision following the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in para Nos.13 to 16 and the said judgment reads as follows: "13. Here in this case, the claim of the petitioners are that they are entitled to be treated like similarly placed persons, who are the petitioners before the Kerala High Court and who are paid the recovered amount. In effect, the contention of the petitioners is that they shall be treated equally and if any discrimination is made on the ground that petitioners 1 to 16 have received Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits and therefore they are not entitled to get the recovered amount, the same will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. Article 14 of the Constitution of India clearly prohibits discrimination and if any discrimination without any intelligible differentia, certainly violation will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is a guaranteed fundamental right available to any person. The said right being the fundamental to treat equally among equals, cannot be negatived on the plea of waiver or estoppel as rightly held by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court. 15.In the light of the above submissions and judgments, there is no substance in the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents that petitioners 1 to 16 are not entitled to maintain the writ petition after accepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 16.(a) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 3588 (K.C.Sharma v. Union of India), wherein in para 6 it is held as under, " 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A.No.774 of 1994 is condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellant would be entitled to the same relief in the matter of pension as has been granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993 in O.A.Nos.395-403 of 1993 and connected matters. No order as to costs." (b)In another decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reported in (2003) 12 SCC 192 (State of Karnataka and others v. N.Parameshwarappa and others) in paragraphs 8 and 9 the Supreme Court held as under, "8....we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the Court. We are in equal agreement with the Division Bench in denying the payment of interest at compounded rates which, in our view, cannot be justified at all on the facts and circumstances of the case wherein a serious and genuine doubt existed about the applicability of the government order dated 30.3.1990, as raised in the proceedings. 9. For all the reasons stated above, the appeals filed both by the State as well as by the private respondent teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration to extend the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the Court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs." (c)In yet another decision reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 788 (Govind Ram Purohit and another v. Jagjiwan Chandra and others), in para 3 the Honourable Supreme Court held thus, "3. Our declaration to extend the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the Court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs." (c)In yet another decision reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 788 (Govind Ram Purohit and another v. Jagjiwan Chandra and others), in para 3 the Honourable Supreme Court held thus, "3. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that whereas the petition had been filed by only Respondent 1, the High Court while finally concluding the matter has given a direction to promote all those who were senior to the appellants even though they were not parties to the petition. Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. There was no point in waiting for each and every person to file a petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason why we should entertain such a technical plea when the High Court has done substantial justice to all concerned." From the analysis of the judgments cited above, it is beyond doubt and clear that once the point is decided in favour of a group of persons, there is no further point in waiting for each and every person to file petition and pray for the same relief. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, the benefit of the judgment is equally applicable to similarly placed persons to do complete and substantial justice." The said judgment was challenged in W.A.No.956 of 2006 and the First Bench of this Court confirmed the same by order dated 30.10.2006 and the SLP (Civil) No.6771 of 2007 filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 23.04.2007. 6. Mr.A.Arumugam, the learned Special Government Pleader takes notice and submitted that if the petitioners are similarly placed like the 11 persons, who filed original application, the respondents are bound to consider the petitioners claim. 7. In view of the said legal position and if there is no factual difference between these petitioners and other 11 persons, who have been given the benefit of regularisation on completion of five years of their initial service, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners based on the representation given by the petitioners dated 2.8.2010. 7. In view of the said legal position and if there is no factual difference between these petitioners and other 11 persons, who have been given the benefit of regularisation on completion of five years of their initial service, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners based on the representation given by the petitioners dated 2.8.2010. The respondents also bear in mind the order passed in W.P.No.29501 of 2004 dated 12.11.2008 granted in favour of four others which was also implemented by them while passing orders. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend the same benefits of regularisation given to the 11 persons who filed the Original Application No.2677 of 1991 to the petitioners also, if the petitioners are similarly placed. Necessary order is directed to be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.