Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have come forward with this petition challenging the order of the third respondent dated 14.09.2009 in Na.Ka.No. Pa Pe 5(1)/418/67284/2009, with a prayer to quash the same and consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to revise the seniority of the petitioners in the post held by them by taking into consideration the date of initial appointment as the crucial date for preparation of 'C' list for further or subsequent or any promotion with consequent revision of pay scale with all attendant benefits on par with their juniors. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners sought for the relief of fixing the seniority, as per the seniority fixed in respect of the similarly placed persons, by making representations to the respondents dated 21.08.2009, 24.08.2009 and 25.08.2009 respectively, but the said representations have been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioners have not obtained any direction or order from the Court. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are similarly placed persons as that of the petitioners in W.P.No.25043/2002, wherein a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 18.09.2007, directing the authorities to re-fix the seniority in respect of those similarly placed persons. It is further pointed out that in other batch of similar matters, this Court passed an order dated 02.07.2009 in W.P.Nos.4155 to 4161/2009, directing the authorities to consider the representation of the said petitioners in the light of the Division Bench order of this Court dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043/2002 and as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home (Police-V) Department 12.12.2008. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in yet another similar matter, this Court passed an order dated 07.07.2010 in W.P.Nos.14447 & 14448/2010, granting similar relief to the similarly placed persons in the light of the Division Bench order and other earlier orders passed by this Court. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners, being similarly placed persons as that of the petitioners in other matters, cannot be deprived of their entitlement to seek the relief of re-fixing their seniority in the light of the Division Bench order of this Court dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043/2002. 3. Heard, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. 3. Heard, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The fact remains that a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043/2002 granting the relief of re-fixing the seniority to the similarly placed persons as that of the petitioners and the said order was also complied by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home (Police-V) Department dated 12.12.2008. The petitioners sought for such similar relief by preferring representations dated 21.08.2009, 24.08.2009 and 25.08.2009 respectively, but their representations were rejected by the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 by the third respondent herein, stating that other similarly placed persons have been given the benefit of re-fixation of the seniority on the basis of the direction given by this Court as per the order dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043/2002 and accordingly, the same was implemented as per G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home (Police-V) Department dated 12.12.2008. 5. It is pertinent to note that in respect of other similarly placed persons, this Court passed an order dated 02.07.2009 in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4155 to 4161/2009, giving similar relief to the said persons by directing the respondents to consider their representations in the light of the Division Bench order of this Court dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043/2002 and its implementation as per G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home (Police-V) Department dated 12.12.2008. In yet another matter, another learned Single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 07.07.2010 in W.P.Nos.14447 & 14448/2010, has given the similar relief in the light of the Division Bench order and other orders and observed as hereunder: “3. In respect of similarly placed persons, an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.9.2007 in W.P.No.25043 of 2002. The said order was implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home Department dated 12.12.2008. 4. Following the aforesaid orders, I disposed of a few writ petitions on 29.01.2009 in W.P.Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2009 etc. batch. Another learned Judge also passed similar orders on 25.6.2009, after which the respondents issued proceedings dated 06.7.2009, implementing the orders passed by this Court and revising the seniority of those petitioners. 5. When the petitioners herein made representation for revision of their seniority on the ground that they are similarly placed, the second respondent herein had issued the impugned communication stating that the petitioners herein are not covered by any Court order. 5. When the petitioners herein made representation for revision of their seniority on the ground that they are similarly placed, the second respondent herein had issued the impugned communication stating that the petitioners herein are not covered by any Court order. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition. 6. The rejection of the request of the petitioners merely on the ground that they have not gone to Court and obtained orders may not be a proper method of considering their cases. To the extent possible, similarly placed persons should be extended similar benefits, without driving them to go to Court. Therefore, these writ petitions are ordered directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on par with others to whom the benefits have been extended and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order...” 7. As already point out, the perusal of the impugned order discloses that the third respondent rejected the representations of the petitioners dated 21.08.2009, 24.08.2009 and 25.08.2009 respectively mainly on the ground that the petitioners' representations are not covered by any Court order. This Court is of the considered view that there should not be any discrimination between the similarly placed persons in respect of revising and fixing the seniority. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 14.09.2009 made in Na.Ka.No. Pa Pe 5 (1)/418/67284/2009 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the third respondent herein is directed to consider the representations of the petitioners' dated 21.08.2009, 24.08.2009 and 25.08.2009 respectively, in the light of the Division Bench order of this Court dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043/2002, as implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home (Police-V) Department dated 12.12.2008 and in the light of the similar orders passed by this Court dated 02.07.2009 in W.P.Nos.4155 to 4161/2009 and the order dated 07.07.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.14447 & 14448/2010, on par with other similarly placed persons to whom benefits have been extended and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.