Judgment :- 1. The first petitioner in W.P.No.433 of 2012 by name V.Devaki was appointed as N.M.R. Worker on 15.01.1982 and the second petitioner by name C.Kanniammal was appointed as N.M.R. worker on 16.10.1982. The petitioner in W.P.No.4041 of 2012 by name M.Raju was appointed as Casual Labourer / NMR on 26.04.1985. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to regularise the services of the NMRs on completion of ten years of service and issued order in G.O.(Ms) No.334, Public Works Department, dated 19.10.2007 stating that the services of the Nominal Muster Roll employees should be regularised on completion of their ten years of service. However, in para 3(ii) of the said Government Order, it is stated that the financial benefit would be given from the date of relaxation in the case of NMRs who require relaxation of some eligibility criteria and in the case of others, they would be given the financial benefit on completion of ten years of service and in both the cases, the actual benefit will accrue from the date of issuance of the Government Orders. 3. The petitioners in W.P.No.433 of 2012 retired from service on 30.06.2011 on reaching the age of superannuation. The third respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 stating that since the petitioners were regularised by the Government Order in G.O.(MS) No.334, Public Works Department, dated 19.10.2007 and they were also given monetary benefits from 19.10.2007, they are not entitled to seek for counting 50% of their NMR service for pension purpose. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the writ petition in W.P.No.433 of 2012. 4. As far as the petitioner in W.P.No.4041 of 2012 is concerned, he has filed the said writ petition seeking for a direction to count 50% of NMR service rendered by him between 26.04.1985 and 01.07.1997 and the entire services after being brought into regular establishment upto superannuation on 31.01.2012. 5. A counter affidavit dated 04.06.2012 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.4041 of 2012. 6. Since the matter lies in a narrow campus, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.4041 of 2012 would also cover the issue raised in W.P.No.433 of 2012. 8. 6. Since the matter lies in a narrow campus, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.4041 of 2012 would also cover the issue raised in W.P.No.433 of 2012. 8. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has made her submissions based on instructions. 9. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules for contending that 50% of NMR service shall be counted for pension, if the Government servant is regularised in service prior to 01.04.2003. According to the petitioners, they were regularised in service prior to 01.04.2003. But however, they were granted monetary benefits only from 19.10.2007. Since they were regularised prior to 01.04.2003, they are entitled to the benefit under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.502 of 2010 dated 07.09.2011. In the said judgment, some of the NMR workers sought to quash para 3(ii) of G.O.(MS) No.334 and the consequential letter dated 05.09.2008. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, in view of the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.502 of 2010, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that as and when the Department forwards the pension proposals, the fourth respondent would act in accordance with law. 13. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 14. The petitioners in W.P.No.433 of 2012 were appointed as NMR workers on 15.01.1982 and 16.10.1982 respectively and the petitioner in W.P.No.4041 of 2012 was appointed as NMR worker on 26.04.1985. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.4041 of 2012, a policy decision was taken by the Government to regularise the services of the NMRs' on completion of their ten years of service. Therefore, it is not in dispute that all the petitioners were regularised in service on completion of ten years as NMR workers. Therefore, it is not in dispute that all the petitioners were regularised in service on completion of ten years as NMR workers. But the petitioners in both the writ petitions required relaxation of rules for their regularisation as per G.O.(Ms)No.334 and hence, they are entitled to financial benefit only from the date of relaxation, as per para 3(ii) of G.O.(MS) No.334, 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." 15. It is true that some of the NMR employees, who are covered by para 3(ii) of the said Government Order, sought to quash para 3(ii) of G.O.(Ms) No.334 by filing writ petition in W.P.No.502 of 2010. They wanted financial benefit on completion of ten years of service as in the case of others who did not require any relaxation. But the same was rejected by this Court by the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed in W.P.No.502 of 2010. 16. I have perused the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed in W.P.No.502 of 2010. In that case, the NMR workers did not pray to count 50% of NMR service for pension purpose. On the other hand, their endeavour was to seek financial benefit on completion of ten years of service, even if they require relaxation of certain eligibility criteria under the Rules and the same was rejected by this Court and G.O.(MS) No.334 was upheld. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the case on hand. 17. As per G.O.(Ms)No.334, all the NMRs were regularised in service on completion of ten years of service. The same is not in dispute. Now, the petitioners are not seeking any financial benefit on completion of ten years of service. The NMRs are entitled to seek for counting 50% of NMR service for the purpose of pension, if their regularisation is prior to 01.04.2003 as per Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the same is also not in dispute. Therefore, the third respondent in W.P.No.433 of 2012 is not correct in stating that since the petitioners were given monetary benefits after 01.04.2003, they are not entitled to seek for counting 50% of the NMR services for the purpose of pension. Therefore, the third respondent in W.P.No.433 of 2012 is not correct in stating that since the petitioners were given monetary benefits after 01.04.2003, they are not entitled to seek for counting 50% of the NMR services for the purpose of pension. The issue is not as to from what date they were given monetary benefits in the regular service and on the other hand, the issue is as to from what date they were regularised in service. Admittedly, all the petitioners were regularised in service on completion of ten years of NMR service. The petitioners in W.P.No.433 of 2012 were regularised in service on 01.07.1992 and 01.01.1993 respectively, and the petitioner in W.P.No.4041 of 2012 was regularised in service on 01.07.1997 as per G.O.(Ms) No.334 18. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the third respondent in W.P.No.433 of 2012 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed and both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ petitions are directed to count 50% of NMR service of the petitioners, before regularisation, for the purpose of pension. The respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ petitions are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise by sending pension proposals for authorisation of pension by the Principal Accountant General, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.