JUDGMENT :- 1. There are 21 petitioners, jointly filed this writ petition seeking a common prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the services of the petitioners against the post shown in the Annexure with effect from the date of their appointment in the erstwhile Vandavasi Rural Electric Co-operative Society or in the alternative from 06.04.2002 the date of take over. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7th petitioner has already been appointed by way of direct recruitment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, the 7th petitioner is not forming part of the present writ petition. The Vandavasi Rural Electric Co-operative Society Ltd. was started in the year 1985 with the subsidy from the State and Central Governments and this was one among the three cooperative societies started in three places in Tamil Nadu namely Vandavasi, Kumbakonam and Thirumayam. These three societies were considered as model societies for supply of electricity to the villages which fall within their respective jurisdiction. These societies were set up only for getting the supply of electricity from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and they have to supply the same to the customers. When these societies were functioning with the above responsibilities, from 06.04.2002 the functions of the society were handed over to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. After take over of these societies, they ceased to function as cooperative societies and the petitioners were also appointed on various posts during the year 2000. 11 of the petitioners were appointed as Helpers, 4 as Assessors, 1 as an Office Assistant, 2 as Junior Assistants, 1 as an Driver and 1 as a cleaner. Even before these petitioners were appointed in the erstwhile co-operative society, there were 122 employees working as employees of the cooperative societies. After the appointment of these petitioners, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheyyar by his proceedings dated 27.07.2000 has recommended for increase in the cadre strength of the society from 122 to 156. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the proceedings issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvanamalai dated 24.12.1999 recommending for increase of the cadre strength of the society to 160. On receipt of the above recommendation of the Deputy Registrar, Cheyyar, the Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.86 Co-op. and Consumer Protection dated 12.03.2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the proceedings issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvanamalai dated 24.12.1999 recommending for increase of the cadre strength of the society to 160. On receipt of the above recommendation of the Deputy Registrar, Cheyyar, the Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.86 Co-op. and Consumer Protection dated 12.03.2001. Immediately on apprehending ousting from service, the petitioners jointly filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5076 of 2002. This Court had passed an order of stay as against the termination of the petitioners from the services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Aggrieved by the order of stay, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board filed W.A. No. 2501 and 2502 of 2001. Learned First Bench of this Court, while considering the Writ Appeal, by its order dated 24.10.2002 have made it clear that whosoever got appointment on or before 12.03.2001, on which date the G.O.Ms.No.86 was passed, should be regularised in the services of the Co-operative societies. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that when there is an observation of this Court in W.A. No. 2501 and 2502 of 2001, the persons who joined the services of the Co-operative Society/ Tamilnadu Electricity Board on or before 12.03.2001 should not be terminated but their services should be regularised. They were allowed to continue in their respective posts on daily wage basis. When they have been continuing without any interruption even now, the respondents, till date, have not come forward to regularise the services of the petitioners. On that basis, learned counsel for the petitioners sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to forbear the respondents from discontinuing the services of the petitioners. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the said prayer was amended on 10.02.2010. As per the amended prayer, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise their services since they have been working from 2000 till now, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Deputy Registrar of Cheyyar dated 21.07.2000 for increase in cadre strength from 122 to 156 of the erstwhile Co-operative Society, which has been taken over by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 4. 4. Though the respondents have filed a counter taking a stand that the petitioners should approach only the Labour Court for the purpose of getting confirmed of their services. Their plea may not be applicable to the present case for the simple reason that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in his proceedings dated 21.07.2000 had already recommended to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvanamalai for the increase in cadre strength from 122 to 156. However, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are not working in the respondent Board and the said submission was denied by learned counsel of the petitioner, stating that all these 20 petitioners are working now. Therefore, this Court directed the counsel appearing for both sides, to find out whether the petitioners are all working as on today in the respondent Board to decide whether the petitioners deserve to be regularised in their services on account of their long length of service. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a list containing the names of 20 petitioners except the 7th petitioner, stating that all these petitioners are presently working in the respondent board. Therefore, it is an admitted case that even before the respondent Electricity Board came into picture, the petitioners joined the services of Cooperative Societies in the year 2000-2001 in various posts as mentioned above and were working from the date of appointment, even during the respondent Electricity Board had taken over the Vandavasi Cooperative Society on 06.04.2000. When the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has taken over the erstwhile Cooperative Society, they have taken over not only the functions of the Cooperative Society, but also have taken over the employees working in these cooperative societies. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar has also, after conducting a proper study, decided to increase the cadre strength from 122 to 156. On the basis of close study of the cadre strength he has also sent his recommendation on 21.07.2000 to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvanamalai recommending the cadre strength from 122 to 156. 5. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar has also, after conducting a proper study, decided to increase the cadre strength from 122 to 156. On the basis of close study of the cadre strength he has also sent his recommendation on 21.07.2000 to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvanamalai recommending the cadre strength from 122 to 156. 5. Therefore, it goes without saying that the erstwhile Vandavasi Rural Electric Cooperative Society Ltd. started in the year 1985, which was taken over by the respondent Board is in need of a modified cadre strength of 156 for taking care of the day to day affairs of the society. The submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Electricity Board that the appointment of all these 20 petitioners, having not been approved by the appointing authority headed by the Co-operative Societies, are ineligible to get regularisation, is far from acceptance, since these petitioners have become employees of the Electricity Board from the date of take over of the society, more than that, the very same Electricity Board has regularised even contract workers. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court, yet another communication dated 19.02.2011, by which the very same Board has absorbed even the contract labourers working in Thirumayam, Vandavasi and Kumbakonam Rural Electric Cooperative Societies. If that being the case, this Court is unable to appreciate as to why the respondents has filed the counter opposing the claim of the petitioners as they have been working even prior to the date of take over of the society. When the respondents Board had already taken a decision to regularise the services of even the contract labourers working in Kumbakonam and Thirumayam Rural Electric Cooperative Societies and also in the very same Vandavasi Rural Electric Cooperative Societies, taking a different stand opposing the prayer for regularisation of the petitioners would tantamount to sheer discrimination offending Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and hence such an approach cannot be accepted by this Court. As rightly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P.StateElectricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 6904, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation cannot be denied, after such a long period of service. As rightly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P.StateElectricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 6904, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation cannot be denied, after such a long period of service. As mentioned earlier, when the respondents Board had already chosen to regularise even the contract workers, the denial of the prayer for regularisation would amount to discrimination as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners who have been working from 2000-2001 till now are to be regularised in the services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to regularise their services. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also fairly concedes that 50% of the backwages may be given to the petitioners and all the petitioners would be prepared to accept the same. Recording the above submission, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of take over i.e 06.04.2002 only by providing 50% of the consequential monetary benefits. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.