Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners on and from March 2004 in respect of petitioners 1 to 3 and January 2001 in respect of the 4th petitioner as provided under G.O.Ms.No.199 Municipal Administration and Water supply department dated 12.8.1997 with all consequential and attendant benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioners herein that they were appointed as sanitary workers on consolidated pay in the Town Panchayat at Namakkal District by the proceedings of the respondents 2 and 3 dated 15.3.2001 and 21.1.1998 respectively. The petitioners are entitled to come under regular time scale of pay on completion of three years during January 2001 and March 2004 onwards, in view of the Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.199 Municipal Administration and Water supply department dated 12.8.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.84 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 21.5.1998 and the judgment of Division Bench dated 23.6.2010 passed in W.A.Nos.47 and 385 of 2010. However, the service of the petitioners was regularised only from 23.6.2006 by the proceedings of the respondents 2 and 3 dated 1.8.2006, which is unjust and unfair. The petitioners made a representation to the respondents in this regard and the same is yet to be considered, which compelled the petitioners to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is already decided in various cases by this Court and one such order was confirmed in W.A.Nos.47 and 385 of 2010 dated 23.06.2010, against which Special Leave Petition was also filed by the Municipality and the said SLP (Civil) No.26605 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 27.09.2010. The said order was implemented by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.570, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 15.11.2010, wherein the Government has granted regularization to similarly placed persons, numbering ten, on completion of 3 years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.08.1997. The said 10 persons are working in Palladam Municipality (III Grade), Thirupur District. Hence, he prayed for similar benefit to the petitioners herein. 4. The said 10 persons are working in Palladam Municipality (III Grade), Thirupur District. Hence, he prayed for similar benefit to the petitioners herein. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by the aforesaid orders and the petitioners are also entitled to get similar benefits. 5. This Court in W.P.No.25620 of 2006, by order dated 17.09.2008 disposed of a similar writ petition by observing as follows: "4.) .... G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.08.1997 could not be given effect due to the policy decision of the Government not to fill up any post except in Police, Medical and Teacher as per the G.O. Ms.212, P & AR Department dated 29.11.2001 with effect from 29.11.2001. Further, there were instructions from the Government vide proceedings dated 29.7.2002, which directed to keep in abeyance the regularizations of sanitary workers due to financial crunch faced by many of the Town Panchayats. The petitioners could not be regularized in service with effect from 2001 mainly due to the ban orders of the Government for filling up of the vacancies. The petitioners have miserably failed to bring notice about G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 23.2.2006, which was issued for regularization of services of workers on consolidated pay and NMRs on daily wages. In view of the policy decision of the Government and in view of the financial constraint the services of the petitioners could not regularized with effect from March 2001. 5.) Mr. V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.Elango, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents have made their submissions based on the above pleadings. 6.) It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as sanitary works initially on consolidated basis in Palladam Municipality in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 12.8.1997. As per the said G.O., the sanitary workers shall be regularized on completion of three years of service. The petitioners, who have been appointed on 27.3.1998 as per the said G.O. ought to have been regularized by 27.3.2001. The reason for not regularizing their services as per the counter affidavit of the respondents is that there was a ban for recruitment except in Police, Medical and Teachers service and hence the services of the petitioners could not be regularized. The reason for not regularizing their services as per the counter affidavit of the respondents is that there was a ban for recruitment except in Police, Medical and Teachers service and hence the services of the petitioners could not be regularized. The ban imposed could only be for a new appointment and the petitioners, who have been already appointed prior to the ban imposed by the Government cannot be denied regularization of their services citing the said ban. All the petitioners have already been appointed and it is not as if new posts are being created or new appointments are made. Hence the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the services of the petitioners could not be regularized in view of the ban imposed by the Government cannot be accepted. 7.) Yet another reason that has been stated by the respondents is that due to financial crunch, such regularization could not be made. Again this cannot be the reason for refusing the regularization of the petitioners in service. The petitioners have been appointed in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.199, referred to above, wherein it is specifically provided that after the completion of three years, their services should be regularized. In view of the said fact, the said contention of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents cannot also be accepted. 8.) Further more as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department dated 23.2.2006 referred to by the respondents, does not refer about G.O.Ms.No.199 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department dated 12.8.1997. Thus, the respondents cannot be permitted to say that the services of the petitioners could be regularized only as per G.O.Ms.No.21 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 23.2.2006 cannot also be accepted. 9.) Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that refusal to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 27.3.2001 is totally erroneous. In the result, the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 27.2.2006 directing the regularization of the services of the petitioners only with effect from 23.2.2006 is required to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the writ petition stands allowed." 6. In the result, the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 27.2.2006 directing the regularization of the services of the petitioners only with effect from 23.2.2006 is required to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the writ petition stands allowed." 6. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.47 of 2010 along with connected W.A.No.385 of 2010 by Judgment dated 23.06.2010. The Division Bench of this Court, in the said judgment held as follows: "2.) The short facts leading to the filing of these appeals are stated hereunder:- The petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed as Sweepers / Sanitary Workers by the concerned Town Panchayats, on a consolidates pay of Rs.900/-with effect from 27.3.1998 and 30.4.1998 respectively. They joined duty on different dates in the year 1998. As per the Government Orders, dated 17.8.1999, on completion of three years of service on consolidated pay, they should have been brought under the time scale of pay with effect from the date when they completed three years. But by means of the orders impugned in the writ petitions, they were brought under the time scale of pay only with effect from 23.2.2006 in so far as W.A.No.47 of 2010 is concerned and with effect from 23.6.2006 in so far as W.A.No.385 of 2010 is concerned. The said orders were challenged in the writ petitions. 3.) The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1454 of 2007, dated 19.12.2008 in the case of Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai and two others vs. R.Sundaradas, allowed the writ petitions and held that the writ petitioners are entitled to the time scale of pay only from the date when they completed three years on consolidated pay and not from any subsequent dated. Aggrieved by the same, the respective Panchayats have filed the above appeals. 4.) We have perused the judgment, dated 19.12.2008 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned appeal. In our view, as rightly held by learned Single Judge, the present cases are squarely covered by the said Division Bench judgment. We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 4.) We have perused the judgment, dated 19.12.2008 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned appeal. In our view, as rightly held by learned Single Judge, the present cases are squarely covered by the said Division Bench judgment. We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit in the appeals they stand dismissed." The SLP filed against the above said order in SLP (Civil) No.26605 of 2010 was dismissed on 27.09.2010. Further, the order of the learned Single Judge was also implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.570, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 15.11.2010. 7. Since the petitioners herein are also similarly placed person as that of the petitioners in W.P.No.25620 of 2006, the petitioners herein are also entitled to get similar relief in terms of G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 12.8.1997. 8. Identically placed persons shall be given similar relief by Courts of law is well settled. The said issue i.e., to consider similarly placed persons equally if the issue is identical was considered by me in the decision reported in 2006 WLR 327 : (2006) 2 MLJ 572 (N.S.Balasubramanian v. Food Corporation of India, New Delhi). Paragraphs 16 and 17 reads as follows: 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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. 17.) The Law Department as well as the Finance Department of the respondents/Corporation considered the similarity of the issue involved and recommended to the respondents to pay the recovered amount to the petitioners as well. Hence the denial of the said benefit to the petitioners is unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The decisions cited by the learned Additional Advocate General reported in AIR 1996 SC 2890 (State of Karnataka v. G.Halappa) and AIR 2002 SC 2427 (State of Karnataka v. G.Halappa) have no application to the facts of this case because of the submission that Circular No.13 dated 9.7.1997 was wrongly applied by the respondents while stepping up of the pay. The said contention was raised before the Kerala High Court and before the Honourable Supreme Court and the same was not accepted. Hence it is not open to the respondents to raise the said plea in this writ petition as they were parties to the proceedings before the Kerala High Court." The said decision is confirmed in W.A.No.956 of 2006 by the Division Bench by Judgment dated 30.10.2006. SLP(C) No.677 of 2007 filed against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.4.2007. 9. SLP(C) No.677 of 2007 filed against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.4.2007. 9. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, by setting aside the proceedings of the respondents 2 and 3 dated 1.8.2006 to regularise the petitioners' service from 23.6.2006 and by directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of completion of three years of contingent service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 12.8.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.84, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.05.1998, with all monetary benefits. The respondents can very well verify the dates of completion of services of the petitioners and grant relief. Necessary order is directed to be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.