Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioners are working, as sweepers, in the third respondent Municipality. Their names have been sponsored, by the District Employment Exchange concerned. They had been appointed in the third respondent Municipality, as per the proceedings, dated 10.02.1999, 12.02.1999 and 25.03.1999, based on the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 05.05.1998, on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/-, per month. On their completion of three years of service, the third respondent had recommended the names of the petitioners, for regularisation, by way of the letters, dated 01.04.2002, 04.04.2012 and 13.09.2002, after passing a resolution, on 14.03.2002. Even thereafter, the first and the second respondents had not taken the necessary steps to regularise the services of the petitioners and their salaries, had not been fixed, on the time scale of pay, as contemplated, under G.O.Ms.No.71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 05.05.1998. 3. It had also been stated that the third respondent Municipality had passed a resolution, on 29.06.2004, recommending the names of the petitioners, for the regularisation of their service. However, the first and the second respondents had not considered the said recommendation, made by the third respondent, till date. Therefore, the petitioners had filed a Writ Petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.34367 of 2005, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2, to consider their representations for the regularisation of their services. This Court, by an order, dated 28.10.2005, had directed the respondents concerned to consider the request of the petitioners for the regularisation of their services. Pursuant to the said order, issued by this Court, on 28.10.2005, and based on the recommendation of the third respondent, dated 08.12.2005, the proceedings, dated 17.03.06, had been issued regularising the services of the petitioners, from the year, 2006, in the time scale of pay of Rs.2850-55-2660-60-3200/-. However, the claims made by the petitioners, for the regularisation of their services, from the year 1999, had not been considered, by the third respondent till date. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 4. However, the claims made by the petitioners, for the regularisation of their services, from the year 1999, had not been considered, by the third respondent till date. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners had been appointed in service as Non-Muster roll employees, in the year 1999. The ban order, for fresh recruitments, had come into force, by way of G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001. However, the said Government Order is not applicable to the petitioners, as they were already in service, with the third respondent Municipality. He had also submitted that similarly placed persons had been regularised, pursuant to the various orders passed by this Court. 5. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the third respondent, stating that the petitioners had been appointed, as Non Muster roll employees, in the year 1999. Thereafter, a Government order had been passed, in G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.11.2001, banning recruitments and therefore, the petitioners could not be regularised in service, as prayed for by them. Subsequently, a Government Order had been issued in G.O.(Ms)No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 23.02.2006, wherein certain conditions had been imposed for the regularisation of the services of Non-Muster Roll employees, who had been working on daily wages, in the various Municipalities and other Municipal corporations. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said Government order reads as follows: "4. In the order 9th read above, the ban orders for making entry level appointments have been lifted. Therefore, the Government have decided to accept the proposals of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration mentioned in Para 3 above and to regularise the service of the 6058 employees on consolidated pay and NMRs on daily wages working in various Municipalities and other Municipal Corporations (except Chennai) and 674 employees on consolidated pay and NMRs on daily wages in Grade-III Municipalities (formerly upgraded Town Panchayat) by bringing them into regular time scale of pay with immediate effect. 5. They accordingly, direct the appointing authorities viz. 5. They accordingly, direct the appointing authorities viz. Municipal Commissioners, Grade III Municipal Commissioners and Commissioners of Municipal Corporations (Except Chennai) to appoint the employees in consolidated pay and NMRs on daily wages on their roll as on 1.10.1996 in respect of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations (except Chennai) and as on 31.12.1996 in respect of Grade-III Municipalities in the vacant posts and to regularise their services in the regular post, from the date of issue of this order subject to the following conditions:- 1) Sanctioned posts should be available. II) Persons should fulfill all Educational and other qualifications and Establishment (Pay and Pension) expenditure of the Urban Local Body should not exceed 49% of revenue after filling up of posts." 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioners, who had been appointed as Non-Muster roll employees, in the year, 1999 could not be regularised in service, due to G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.11.2001. However, when the ban order on recruitment was lifted, certain conditions had been prescribed, under G.O.(Ms) No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply -(MC3) Department, dated 23.02.2006. Therefore, the respondents had to strictly follow the conditions imposed by the Government Order, under G.O.(Ms)No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 23.02.2006. Accordingly, the petitioners would not be eligible for being regularised in service, from the time of their initial appointment, in the year, 1999. 7. In view of the averments, made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the third respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners, in consultation with the first and the second respondents, taking into consideration the various aspects relating to the regularisation of the petitioners, in service, including the conditions prescribed in G.O.(Ms)No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 23.02.2006, and the earlier orders passed by this Court, in W.A.No.273 of 2011, dated 02.03.2011, in W.P.No.696 to 701 of 2011, dated 20.09.2011 and in W.P.No.9277 of 2010 and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.