JUDGMENT :- 1. In all the four writ petitions, the petitioners have come forward to challenge G.O.Ms.No.334 Public Works(C2) Department dated 19.10.2007 and seeks to challenge Para.3(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.334 Public Works Department dated 19.10.2007. In the said G.O. The State Government framed a scheme for absorption of 1506 Nominal Muster Roll employees to adjust them against the vacancies available in the particular category and also accommodate them in those categories. In the said order, it was stated that Nominal Muster Roll employees of both coming under the Civil and Electrical who have completed 10 years of service, will be brought under regular establishment and their services will be regularised. In the said G.O., the names of employees, their date of birth, their community date of appointment, date of completion of ten years, their educational qualifications and also the relevant recruitment rules which are to be relaxed their favour for the purpose of bringing them under regular establishment. 2. The State Government in the very same G.O. also cancelled the earlier annexures I & II which were appended to the G.O.Ms.No.321 Public Works Department dated 28.09.2007 and the present G.O. comprised of 1056 Nominal Muster Roll employees. In Paragraph 5 of the said order, it was stated that the Chief Engineer(General) Public Works Department and the Regional Chief Engineers concerned are responsible to the facts and figures given in their proposals in respect of regularization and in the said G.O. Impugned, Annexures I to XIV contained the names of employees including the petitioners herein. The State Government in the penultimate paragraph, had stated that for the purpose of regularization, it is established that there will be an expenditure of Rs.4,44,52,887/- in this regard and necessary proposal will have to be sent to the financial department. 3. The petitioners were beneficiaries of the said order. However, in these writ petitions, curiously they have come forward to challenge Paragraph 3(ii) of the G.O. which reads as follows: "3(ii) where relaxation of eligibility criteria is involved, the financial benefit will be reckoned from the date of relaxation. In other cases, from the date they have completed 10 years of service. In either case actual monetary benefit will accrue from the date of issue of Government orders." 4. In other cases, from the date they have completed 10 years of service. In either case actual monetary benefit will accrue from the date of issue of Government orders." 4. As noted in the said paragraph, it is stated that insofar as relaxation of eligibility criteria is concerned the financial benefit will be reckoned from the date of relaxation, in other case, they have completed 10 years of service in either case, either monetary benefit will accrue from the date of issue of the Government Order. The letter dated 05.09.2008, the Principal Secretary to Government addressed to the Chief Engineer (General),Public Works Department had informed that in respect of the G.O. it is implied that the date of relaxation is the date of issue of orders namely 19.10.2007 and the monetary benefits will accrue from the date of issuance of orders. Hence, the pay of the 1056 NMRs issued in the G.O. cited to be fixed in the minimum of the time scale on 19.10.2007, at a starting stage as well as the monetary benefit will have to be allowed from that date. 5. The contention of the petitioners as set out in the affidavit is that confining the monetary benefits from the date of G.O. is without basis and suffers from want of application of mind. Once the Government chooses to invoke the power of relaxation under Rule 48 of the General Rules contained in Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, then the regularization so made should not be detrimental to the individual and regularization given long back to the date of regularisation. It should be reckoned to the date on which they have completed 10 years and the failure to do the request made by the petitioner will result in grave injustice. It is also stated that the petitioner have worked and toiled as casual labourer and have long service, G.O. came to be issued and once the qualifying service of 10 years has taken for regularisation, then the benefit should go before the date of completion for 10 years and not the artificial date of taking note of the date of G,.O. 6. It is stated that this Court in a catena of judgments have underlined the principles of discrimination in the matter of relaxation. It is stated that this Court in a catena of judgments have underlined the principles of discrimination in the matter of relaxation. It is also followed the decision of the State Government which has been followed uniformly in the matter of grant of such relaxation from the date on which they have completed ten years. In this context, the petitioner relied upon several G.Os.issued from 1.7.1996 to 15.05.2008 wherein the same practice was made and therefore they are eligible for the benefit as prayed for by them and to the extent, the G.O. Should be amended and that portion of the G.O. should be set aside. 7. The first writ petition was admitted on 23.01.2009. Subsequently, other writ petitions with similar prayer were came to be admitted. Pending the writ petition, this Court declined to grant any interim relief, though the prayer was made, for staying the operation of that portion of the G.O. 8. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, supported by Mr.Sudhakar, counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in the matter of fixation of benefits, the Government should not discriminate and the policy of the Government inasmuch as it is only to confer the benefits on the date of completion of 10 years,the monetary benefits should be given including the fixation of notional benefits starting from the date and not from the said G.O. 9. Mr.Sudhakar, also placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court V.Perumal Vs. Commisioner and Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George and others reported in (2006) 2 MLJ 339 and referred to Paragraph 4 of the said Judgment. In that case, the Court held that the regularization made after several years should not deprive the workmen's service. The judgment proceeded on factual basis and there is no reference to any legal precedent quoted in this regard. Time and again it has been held that regularization is purely a discretion of the Government and once it is exercised, there cannot be any improvement on the power of such relaxation. 10. In essence, the petitioner wants to read the present G.O,. In the backdrop of the previous G.Os. which were issued from time to time under different circumstances, the contention to the contrary raised by the petitioner and are liable to be rejected. 11. 10. In essence, the petitioner wants to read the present G.O,. In the backdrop of the previous G.Os. which were issued from time to time under different circumstances, the contention to the contrary raised by the petitioner and are liable to be rejected. 11. The order impugned viz., G.O.Ms.No.334, Public Works Department dated 19.10.2007 is a scheme framed by the Government in respect of qualified number of NMRs to be relaxed and have put in reckoned service thereafter. Since a Scheme of that nature has to be comprehensive scheme and the petitioners are inasmuch as beneficiaries of the scheme, wherein the Government had relaxed essential qualifications for holding the posts of regular Government servants by exercising its power under Rule 48, cannot seek to improve upon the scheme. In any manner showing the previous order will not help their case. It cannot be, contended that what should be the rationale behind the said policy. In fact substantial number of G.Os.cited were issued before the Supreme Court's Judgment in Uma Devi's case reported in 2006 4 SCC 1. In Uma Devi's case (cited supra), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had only mentioned as an one time measure that too in respect of last grade employees by framing a scheme can be regularised only to that extent, the Supreme Court had exempted the State Governments. 12. But, subsequently, when several State Governments gave periodical exemptions citing Uma Devi's case, the Supreme Court frowned upon such regularization. It was directed that any recruitment should be done only in the light of the recruitment rules and any deviation made will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In fact, very recently, (a matter which went from this State) the Supreme Court in its decision in Union of India Vs. ArulmozhiIniarasu and others reported in 2011 7 SCC 397 has held that the engagement of casual labourers even for considerably long duration did not confer any legal right on them for seeking mandamus for relaxation of necessary rule. The direction granted for relaxation contained in the recruitment rules, was held to be clearly unsustainable. In the said Judgment, the Court in Paragraph 26 laid down the circumstances under which a writ of mandamus can be issued. Paragraph 26 reads as follows: "26. The direction granted for relaxation contained in the recruitment rules, was held to be clearly unsustainable. In the said Judgment, the Court in Paragraph 26 laid down the circumstances under which a writ of mandamus can be issued. Paragraph 26 reads as follows: "26. Lastly, as regards the submission that the action of the appellants is highly discriminatory inasmuch as some similarly situated persons have been appointed/absorbed as Sepoys, the argument is stated to be rejected. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and corresponding legal obligation on the State. Only because an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated. It is trite law that there cannot be equality in illegality (Ref.Sushanta Tagore Vs. Union of India (2005) 3 SCC 16 , U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd., V .Sant Raj Singh ( (2006) 9 SCC 82 :2006 SCC (L & S) 1610, State v.Sashi Balasubramanian ((2006) 13 SCC 252 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 337 and State of Orissa v.Prasana Kumar Sahoo (2007) 15 SCC 129 :(2010) 2 SCC (L & S) 765." 13. Under the said circumstances, this Court is unable to countenance the prayer made by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. Are closed.