JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was appointed as casual labourer on daily wage basis in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Labour, Thuckalay in the Labour Department. He joined duty as daily rated workman on 12.07.1991. A proposal was sent by the 2nd respondent for regularisation of the service of the petitioner and similarly situated persons to the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent returned the proposals and refused to regularise the service by the order dated 08.05.2000. The reason given in the order dated 08.05.2000 is that already there were 327 surplus Office Assistants in the Labour Department and they were to be transferred at the appropriate vacant places and therefore, the proposal for regularisation of the services of the daily paid workman could not be considered. Based on the same, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2000. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4781 of 2001 (W.P.No.10148 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 08.06.2000 by the 2nd respondent and for direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 10.07.1991 from the date of initial appointment. 2. The respondents filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Government issued G.O.Ms.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Dated 10.10.1988 for appointing the daily paid employees in regular vacancies that could arise. The aforesaid G.O. is applicable to persons who were appointed on daily wages before 01.03.1993. It is stated that the 2nd respondent sent proposals for regularisation but the 1st respondent rejected the proposal stating that there were 327 surplus Office Assistants in the Labour Department. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The petitioner has been in service from the year 1991 for the past 20 years. The Government issued G.O.Ms.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Dated 10.10.1988 to appoint the daily paid employees in regular vacancies that could arise in the Department. In the order dated 08.05.2000, the Government stated that there were 327 surplus Office Assistants in the Labour Department and they were to be transferred to the appropriate vacant place. Until those 327 persons were transferred to the available vacant places, the petitioner would not be regularised. 5. By the said order dated 08.05.2000, the 1st respondent has admitted that there were vacant places to accommodate those 327 surplus Office Assistants. Until those 327 persons were transferred to the available vacant places, the petitioner would not be regularised. 5. By the said order dated 08.05.2000, the 1st respondent has admitted that there were vacant places to accommodate those 327 surplus Office Assistants. If they were not adjusted against those vacant places, that is not the mistake of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in employment from 1991 onwards. It is not the case that no work was available to the petitioner. On the other hand proposal was sent by the 2nd respondent for the regularisation of the service of the petitioner and similarly situated persons. 6. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner should not be denied the regularisation of service after 10 years of service, particularly when the Government issued G.O.Ms.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006 regularising the service of all workmen on completion of 10 years of service. Apart from the said G.O., the Government issued periodically orders regularising the service of daily paid employees. In this case, the 2nd respondent also sent proposals for regularisation of the petitioner and similarly situated persons. The only reason given by the 1st respondent for rejection of the proposal of the 2nd respondent was that there were 327 surplus Office Assistants in the Labour Department and they have to be posted in the vacant places and only thereafter the issue relating to the appointment of the petitioner in regular vacancy would arise. As I have already held, not appointing those 327 persons in the vacant places is not due to the fault of the petitioner and the petitioner could not be penalized. 7. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and hence it is quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the service of the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.22 referred to above. The 1st respondent is directed to do the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above condition. No costs.