JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner's father N.R.Govindhan was employed as Senior Tractor Driver in the Office of the third respondent. The petitioner's brother was given compassionate appointment as Watchman on daily wage basis from 24.1.1980. However, before his regularisation, he died on 19.8.1991. In these circumstances, the petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on daily wage basis on compassionate ground. The third respondent sent a proposal to the Superintending Engineer, (Agricultural Engineer), Erode, for regularising the services of the petitioner. Based on the said proposal, the Superintending Engineer recommended in his proceedings dated 22.11.1995, for regularisation of services of the petitioner and the same was forwarded to the second respondent for appropriate orders. 2. Again the third respondent sent another letter dated 19.06.1997 to the second respondent, seeking regularisation of the services of the petitioner. 3. While so, the Head of the Department viz., the Chief Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, sent proposals in his letter dated 09.09.1998 to the Government for issuing suitable orders for relaxation of rules for appointment to regularise the service of the petitioner. The Chief Engineer sent a letter dated 15.03.2001 to the petitioner informing that order from the Government is awaited relating to regularisation of his services. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed O.A.321 of 2004 (W.P.31910/2005) seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise his services. 5. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit to the effect that similarly placed person one V.Mariappan, Watchman, was regularised in service, by order dated 31.8.2004, with effect from the date of his initial appointment. 6. The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. The respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the proposals were sent by various authorities to the Government for regularisation of service of the petitioner, the name of V.Mariappan also finds a place in those proposals. He has produced the order dated 31.8.2004 of the third respondent, regularising the services of V.Mariappan, which was based on G.O.(D.2)No.171, Agriculture (AA3) Department, dated 15.09.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks similar order in the case of the petitioner, as he has been in service for the past 20 years, without regularisation. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, has made his submissions based on the counter affidavit and also sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks similar order in the case of the petitioner, as he has been in service for the past 20 years, without regularisation. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, has made his submissions based on the counter affidavit and also sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I have considered the submissions on either side. 11. The petitioner has been employed as a Watchman from 08.11.1991 on daily wage basis. The third respondent, as well as the second respondent, sent proposals to the first respondent for regularisation of the services of the petitioner. Those proposals are enclosed in the typed-set of papers and the same is not disputed by the respondents. In fact, none of the averments made in the writ petition are controverted. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, except praying for dismissal of the writ petition, nothing is stated against the prayer made by the petitioner and the other averments made in the writ petition. It may be due to the various proposals made by respondents 2 and 3 to the first respondent seeking regularisation of the services of the petitioner. 12. While the first respondent passed orders in G.O.(D2).No.171, Agriculture (AA3) Department dated 15.09.2003, regularising the services of V.Mariappan as Watchman with effect from 12.6.1999, no order is passed in the case of the petitioner. There is no reason given by the respondents for not regularising the services of the petitioner, when it is specifically averred in the additional affidavit that one V.Mariappan, Watchman, who was working in the third respondent's office, along with the petitioner, was regularised. In these circumstances, in my view, not regularising the services of the petitioner, is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents is discriminatory, as the colleague of the petitioner was regularised and the petitioner has not been regularised. Hence, the first respondent is directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as in the case of one V.Mariappan, in terms of G.O. (D2).No.171, Agriculture (AA3) Department dated 15.09.2003, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.