Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions praying to quash para 4 of the order passed by the second respondent in G.O. Ms. No.9, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 06.01.1998 and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from 24.07.1987 and 25.05.1987 respectively i.e., from the date of their initial appointment based on the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 573 of 1995 and batch dated 15.02.1996 with consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. According to the petitioners, they were appointed as temporary Assistant Medical Officers on 24.07.1987 and 25.05.1987 respectively under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service. Subsequently, on 04.03.1992, both the petitioners were ousted from service for want of Vacancy. Again, the petitioners were re-called and appointed from 15.06.1992 and 01.06.1992 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners continued their service in the Department without any break nearly for two decades without their service being regularised. The petitioners also made several representations to the respondents seeking to regularise their service from the date of their initial appointment. While so, the petitioners were selected and appointed as Assistant Medical Officer through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by the impugned order dated 06.01.1998. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order in so far as it restricts the date of their regularisation with prospective effect i.e., 06.01.1998 thereby the services rendered by them from the date of their initial appointment was not counted for the purpose of regularisation of their service. According to the petitioners, the impugned order dated 06.01.1998 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned order. The petitioners have submitted detailed representations dated 09.03.1998 and 20.04.1998 to the respondents requesting them to regularise their service from the date of their initial appointment, but their reprsentations were not considered. The petitioners further contends that similarly placed persons like the petitioners have filed O.A. Nos. 707 of 1991, 573 of 1995, 4635 of 1995, 4467 of 1995, 4966 of 1995 and 5147 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same were entertained and disposed of by the Tribunal by an order dated 15.02.1996 and 20.05.1997 holding that the temporary Assistant Medical Officers, who had put in 4 years of service, have to be considered for regularisation. It was also contended that the order passed by the Tribunal in the Original Applications filed by similarly placed persons were also implemented by the respondents, however, the same benefit was not given to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the present writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent in so far as it restricts the date of their regularisation with prospective effect. 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submit that when similarly placed persons were given the benefit of regularisation of their service from the initial date of their appointment, refusing to extend the same benefit to the petitioners is arbitrary and discriminatory. By the impugned order, the petitioners decade old service were not taken into account for the purpose of regularisation, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 02.09.2008 passed by this Court in WP No. 29797 of 2006 filed by similarly placed persons like the petitioners wherein this Court directed the respondents therein to regularise the service of the first petitioner therein, inasmuch as the service of the other petitioners were regularised during the pendency of the writ petition, from the date of his initial appointment as Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) with all consequential attendant benefits. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to allow these writ petitions in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court in WP No. 29797 of 2006 dated 02.09.2008. 4. Even though the writ petitions were filed during 2005, till date, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit repudiating the various averments made by the petitioners in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. 5. I heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material records placed. 6. It is seen from the records that the petitioners were appointed on 24.07.1987 and 25.05.1987 respectively as Assistant Medical Officers under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service. Subsequently, It is seen from the ousting order dated 28.02.1992 pased by the third respondent that the petitioners, along with several others, were ousted from service for want of vacancy. Subsequently, It is seen from the ousting order dated 28.02.1992 pased by the third respondent that the petitioners, along with several others, were ousted from service for want of vacancy. The names of the petitioners are indicated in the ousting order dated 28.02.1992 in serial Nos. 10 and 5, respectively. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners were appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service and for want of vacancy, their services were ousted along with others. Thus, it is evident that even the break in service of the petitioners for a short period is not due to any fault attributable on their part but due to want of vacancy. Subsequently, by order dated 05.06.1992 of the third respondent, the petitioners, along with others, were given posting orders and thereafter, they were working continuously without any break. It is also seen from the records that the Tribunal passed a common order dated 15.02.1996 in O.A. Nos. 573 tc., of 1995 filed by similarly placed persons like the petitioners seeking for a direction to the respondents to regularise their service and based on the directions issued by the Tribunal, the third respondent passed an order dated 17.09.1997 regularising the services of 48 temporary Assistant Medical Officers. On coming to know the orders passed by the respondents in favour of similarly placed persons, the petitioners have also submitted representations on 09.03.1998 and 20.04.1998 respectively specifically referring to the order passed by the Tribunal and requested to regularise their service from the date of their initial appointment. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the second respondent has not assigned any reasons for regularising the service of the petitioners prospectively from the date of issuance of the order. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the decision of this Court in WP No. 29797 of 2006 dated 02.09.2008 wherein in para No.10, it was held as follows:- 10.)It is to be noted that the averments of the petitioner that he had worked for more than eight years as Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The applicability of the judgment in O.A. No. 707 of 1991 to the facts of this case has not been dealt with. The applicability of the judgment in O.A. No. 707 of 1991 to the facts of this case has not been dealt with. As stated supra, no reasons have been given as to why the services of the first petitioner alone ws not regularised in the post of Assistant Medical Officer, as done in the case of other petitioners. Therefore, in the absence of any valid reasons assigned in the counter affidavit as to why the first petitioner alone was not regularised and denial of the petitioner's contention that he had passed the special qualificying examination. I have no other alternative except to accept the contention made by the petitioner. The judgment in O.A. No. 707 of 1991 to regularise the services who had worked for four years or more, would be applicable to the case of the petitioner also. When the services of the petitioners 2 to 5 were regularised in the post of Assistant Medical Officer with effect from their date of initial appointment as per the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.442, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.09.1997, failure to regularise the case of the first petitioner amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 8. In the present case, the petitioners have been appointed and working on temporary basis for more than ten years and thereafter, their services were regularised by the second respondent by passing the impugned order, with prospective effect, thereby the services rendered by the petitioners for more than 10 years from the date of their original appointment were not taken into account for the purpose of regularisation. It has to be mentioned that the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit repudiating the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petitions either relating to the date of their initial appointment or the continued service rendered by them till the date on which the impugned order was passed on 06.01.1998. Moreover, identical relief sought for by similarly placed persons like the petitioners were granted by this Court in the decision mentioned supra. Therefore, following the same, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to get their services regularised from the initial date of their appointment and the impugned order dated 06.01.1998, in so far as it restricts the date of appointment of the petitioners prospectively, is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. 9. Therefore, following the same, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to get their services regularised from the initial date of their appointment and the impugned order dated 06.01.1998, in so far as it restricts the date of appointment of the petitioners prospectively, is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders regularising the service of the petitioners from the date of their appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.