Judgment :- ElipeDharma Rao, J. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 639 of 2012, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal. 2. The facts in brief are as follows :- The appellant was appointed on 01.09.2007 as a Lecturer (Senior Scale) on contract basis for the academic year 1997-1998 at Government Law College, Madurai and was terminated on 30.04.1998. However, the appellant was subsequently appointed on 14.07.1998 on contract basis and was allowed to work continuously without any break. In the meantime, the appellant was transferred and posted at Coimbatore and retired from service on 30.11.2010. According to the appellant, he was appointed in a substantive post after going through the selection process as has been done in the case of regular appointees and following the G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 12.01.2001, he, who is similarly placed like the beneficiaries in the said G.O., should also be given monetary benefits including the pension. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid G.O., the appellant made several representations and, since there was no reply, the appellant preferred the writ petition for regularisation of his service and consequent monetary benefits. The stand of the Respondents before the learned single Judge was that the appointment of the appellant was on contract basis and, therefore, he is not entitled for any benefits. 3. The learned single Judge accepting the stand of the respondents, dismissed the writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials on record. 5. It is an unfortunate case where a Senior Lecturer who entered the teaching profession in 1997 and worked till 2010, was refused monetary and pensionary benefits on the ground that his appointment was temporary and on contract basis only. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the Government Law College after following the regular selection process and when there are permanent vacancies to be filled up by the Government. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the Government Law College after following the regular selection process and when there are permanent vacancies to be filled up by the Government. Though the appellant was engaged on contract basis as per the order passed by the Government, on consideration of the proposal submitted by the second respondent to fill up the vacancies, in the interest of the students, on contract basis, for the academic year 1998 – 99 by the same exercise as done for the academic year 1988 – 89 as has been stated in their counter affidavit, they have undergone the selection process conducted by the respondents from three sources ie., obtaining the list of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange, conducting examination through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Teachers' Recruitment Board and another from Professional Executive Exchange and after preparing the merit list based on the marks obtained, the appellant and others were appointed though they were named as contract appointees. 6. It is the admitted case of the respondents in their counter affidavit that there is a work load and to protect the interest of the students, they resorted to fill up the vacancies of lecturers. It is evident from the materials that during the academic year 1988 – 90, for the reasons best known to the respondents, they have not gone for regular selection to fill up the vacancies but resorted to go for appointment of lecturers on contract basis by virtue of which, the appellant and others, were deprived of service benefits at the end of their retirement from service. Once there is a workload, the respondents should have gone for regular appointment instead of making contract appointments for years together. Moreover, though the stand of the respondents is taken into consideration, in the case of the other lecturers, who were engaged in 1988 – 89 and 1989 – 90, the respondents thought it fit to regularise their services from 26.3.1993 as per G.O. No. 9 Law Department dated 12.01.2001. It is not known as to why they have not applied the same principle in the case of the appellant and others recruited in 1997 for regularisation as per G.O. No. 170 dated 22.7.2008. It is not known as to why they have not applied the same principle in the case of the appellant and others recruited in 1997 for regularisation as per G.O. No. 170 dated 22.7.2008. This is another circumstance under which we consider that the entire action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the appellant and others not only from the date of their initial appointment or at least after completion of four years of service, amounts to violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 7. Further, if the above said reason is taken into consideration, regularising at the end of fourth year as was done in the case of the other lecturers engaged for the academic year 1988 - 89 by G.O. No. 9, the same principle should have been extended to the appellant and others, who are eligible for regularisation in the year 2001, in which case the appellant will be eligible for grant of pension and other benefits. 8. From the above discussion, viewing from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that non-regularisation of the appellant along with others on par with the lecturers, who were engaged on contract basis as per the permission granted by the Government from the academic year 1988 – 1990 in G.O. No. 9 dated 12.01.2001, is illegal offending the right of equality enshrined under Article 14 r/w Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the stereotyped contentions raised by the respondents that the appellant, along with others, was not appointed in a substantive vacancy, but he was appointed on contract basis. There is no dispute that the appellant has undergone regular selection process even for contract basis appointment as ordered by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 443 dated 18.8.1997 and subsequent orders passed by the Government from time to time. 9. For the above stated reasons, we hold that the appellant is entitled to be regularised in service from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., on 01.9.1997 in view of G.O. Ms. No. 9, which was made applicable to similarly placed lecturers. Since the appellant has retired on 30.11.2010, after completing ten years of service, he is eligible for all service and pensionary benefits. 10. No. 9, which was made applicable to similarly placed lecturers. Since the appellant has retired on 30.11.2010, after completing ten years of service, he is eligible for all service and pensionary benefits. 10. It is needless to mention that the second respondent and the Government have got power to regularise the services of the appellant as has been done in other Departments. While regularising the contract labourers and NMRs after completion of three years, it is not known as to why they have not resorted to exercise the same power to the case of the appellant after completion of three years instead of following the method of engaging lecturers on contract basis for decades together. With a view to avoid this sort of litigation and the procedure of engaging the lecturers in Dr. Ambedkar Law College for decades together without filling up the vacancies on regular basis, which is offending the provisions of the Constitution, more so, Article 14 of the Constitution, hereafter, and in the interest of public, we direct the respondents to take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies of the above said lecturer posts on regular basis. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.