ORDER 1. In W.P.(MD)Nos.3699 and 3700 of 2007,the prayer sought for by the respective petitioners is seeking for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as 'Driver' in the first respondent Municipality with all back wages and benefits with continuity of service. 2. In W.P.(MD)No.9956 of 2009, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the third respondent, dated 30.09.2009 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents to regularise the petitioner's service in the post of Driver with all attendant benefits. In the said impugned order, the third respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularising his service and also directed the petitioner not to continue the service from 01.10.2009. 3. The case of the petitioners, in all these three writ petitions are almost common. It is stated by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3699 of 2007 that he was appointed as a 'Driver' on 07.05.1997 and was continuously working without any break till he was orally terminated on 01.04.2007. Like-wise, in W.P.(MD)No.3700 of 2007, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as 'Driver' on 07.05.1997 and he was continuously working without any break till he was orally terminated by the first respondent on 01.04.2007. 4. In W.P.(MD)No.9956 of 2009 is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner therein that he was appointed on 01.11.1996. 5. It is seen that all these petitioners, while they were in service, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and filed applications seeking for regularisation of their services and also for a direction not to oust them in the meantime. The said Original Applications filed by the petitioners were transferred to this Court in W.P.Nos.37963 of 2005, 38057 of 2005 and 2330 of 2007. 6. In so far as the W.P.Nos.37963 and 38057 of 2005 are concerned, an order came to be passed by this court on 27.03.2006, whereby the respondent therein, namely the first respondent herein was directed to consider the case of the respective petitioners for the future vacancies, based on their seniority for regular absorption in accordance with the rules. In so far as the other W.P.No.No.2330 of 2007 is concerned, this court had directed the third respondent by its order, dated 04.08.2009 to consider the representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed in W.P.No.9956 of 2009. In so far as the other W.P.No.No.2330 of 2007 is concerned, this court had directed the third respondent by its order, dated 04.08.2009 to consider the representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed in W.P.No.9956 of 2009. However, in the case of the other two writ petitioners, no such order was ever passed, but on the other hand, they were ousted from the service orally on 01.04.2007. Therefore, all the petitioners have come before this court seeking for the relief as stated in their respective writ petitions. 7. The first respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.3699 and 3700 of 2007 filed a counter affidavit separately and stated that both the petitioners were appointed as 'NMR Drivers' on 07.05.1997 and they were sanctioned with Pongal Bonus and Festival Advance. It is also admitted by the first respondent that the petitioners have filed Original Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same were transferred to this court. By an order, dated 27.03.2006, this court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners for the future vacancies, based on the seniority for their regular absorption. 8. It is further stated by the first respondent that there was no charge or any other enquiry pending against the petitioners. It is further stated by the first respondent that the petitioners were not working from March 2006 to February 2007 and therefore, salary was not paid to them. However, the second respondent directed the first respondent to pay salary for the said period and accordingly, salary was paid to the respective petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners were not terminated from 01.04.2007 by any oral order and on the other hand, even prior to 01.04.2007, the petitioner were not given any employment. 9. In so far as W.P.(MD)No.9956 of 2009 is concerned, the third respondent filed a counter affidavit and in which, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed only on 01.01.1987 and not on 01.01.1996. G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 is not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service from the date of his original appointment. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and as well as the respondents in all these writ petitions. 11. G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 is not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service from the date of his original appointment. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and as well as the respondents in all these writ petitions. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when they were appointed in the year 1996 and 1997 respectively, they are entitled to be regularised in their services and instead of regularising their services, the action of the first respondent in terminating the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.3699 and 3700 of 2007 with effect from 01.04.2007 orally, is illegal and in so far as the other petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9956 of 2007 is concerned, when admittedly, the petitioner was working, the impugned order came to be passed not only rejecting the claim for regularisation, but also directing the petitioner to stop coming to the work from 01.10.1997 onwards. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit, in view of the fact that under G.O.Ms.No.19, Municipal Administrative & Water Supply Department (N.P.1), dated 18.01.2007, no appointment is permitted, when the expenditure relating to salary of the employees and retirement benefits exceeds 49% of the revenue of the Municipality. 13. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.125 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners, as they have not put in 10 years of service as on 01.10.2006. 14. It is an admitted fact that all these petitioners were appointed as 'Drivers' in the first respondent Municipality. In so far as the writ petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.3699 and 3700 of 2007 are concerned, the first respondent admits that they have been appointed on 07.05.1997. However, only in the case of the other writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9956 of 2009, the third respondent disputes that the petitioner therein was only appointed on 01.11.1996 and not on 07.05.1997. Whether it is 01.11.1996 or 07.05.1997, the fact remains that all the petitioners should have put in more than 10 years of service as on today. However, in so far as the other two writ petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.3699 and 3700 of 2007 are concerned, they are out of service from 01.04.2007. 15. It is the case of the petitioners is that they have been terminated orally. However, in so far as the other two writ petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.3699 and 3700 of 2007 are concerned, they are out of service from 01.04.2007. 15. It is the case of the petitioners is that they have been terminated orally. But, it the case of the first respondent that no employment is given to the petitioners even much prior to 01.04.2007. Therefore, the fact remains that the petitioners, who were working from 07.05.1997 were not given employment from April 2000 without assigning any reason and without passing any order, all of a sudden, that too in total violation of principles of natural justice. 16. It is further admitted by the first respondent that no charge memo or any other case is pending against those petitioners. If that be the position, the persons, who were working continuously, cannot be sent out of the employment all of a sudden, merely by citing a G.O., which says that no appointment can be made exceeding 49% of the expenses of the Municipality income. The said G.O. came to be made only in the year 2007. On the other hand, the petitioner’s appointments were made in the year 1997. Therefore, I fail to understand as to how the said G.O. can be applied in the case of the petitioners. At any event, as there was no termination order was passed and the petitioners were kept out of employment forcibly by the first respondent, in total disregard to the principles of natural justice, I find every justification in the claim of the petitioners seeking for reinstatement into service as 'Driver'. 17. Yet another factor, which is important for consideration of this court, is that when the petitioners have approached this court either by way of a prayer for regularisation of their services, this court while passing an order on 27.03.2006 had observed that the petitioners were continuously working and possess required qualification for the post of Driver and that no lapse of any kind were pointed out against the petitioners, in the execution of their work as a Driver. After observing so, the learned Judge further directed the respondent therein namely first respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioners for future vacancies, based on their seniority for 'Regular Absorption' in accordance with law. After observing so, the learned Judge further directed the respondent therein namely first respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioners for future vacancies, based on their seniority for 'Regular Absorption' in accordance with law. When such direction was issued by this court, directing the first respondent to absorb the petitioners for future vacancies, I fail to understand as to how the first respondent had kept the petitioners out of employment forcibly without giving effect to the order made by the learned single Judge, dated 01.08.2006. 18. It is also not the case of the first respondent that the learned Judge order was further appealed. When the said order has become final, conclusive and binding on the respective parties, in my considered view, the action of the first respondent in keeping the petitioners out of employment from 01.04.2007 is not only illegal, but also against the order passed in W.P.Nos.37963 and 38057 of 2005, dated 27.03.2006 and W.P.No.2330 of 2007, 26.08.2009. In view of the above discussion of facts and circumstances, I am of the firm view that the petitioners are entitled to get reinstated into service as 'Driver' at the first respondent Municipality. 19. Further in so far as the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9956 of 2009 is concerned, it is also the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on 01.11.1996, but on the other hand, it is the case of the third respondent Corporation that he was appointed on 07.05.1997. To apply G.O.Ms.No.22, the persons should have put in 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. According to the respondents, as the petitioner was having less than 10 years of service, as on 01.01.2006 by taking note of his joining service on 01.07.1997, the regularisation sought for by the petitioner was denied. 20. A perusal of the said G.O.Ms.No.22 would only show that it was not made as a one time measure granting regularisation to the employees, who have put in 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. The intention of the Government was very clear in granting regularisation of the employee, who have put in 10 years of continuous service, when Government Order came to be passed on 28.02.2006. Therefore, they fixed a cut of date as 01.01.2006 for counting 10 years of service. The intention of the Government was very clear in granting regularisation of the employee, who have put in 10 years of continuous service, when Government Order came to be passed on 28.02.2006. Therefore, they fixed a cut of date as 01.01.2006 for counting 10 years of service. That does not mean that the other persons, who have put in 10 years of service, even after the said date, are not entitled for regularisation. If that is the interpretation to be given, it would certainly lead to discrimination among the similarly situated persons thereby violating Article 14 of Constitution of India. In my considered view, as the very G.O.Ms.No.22 does not stipulate or intend that it has to be applied as a one time measure, the G.O. has to be applied to other persons also who had put in 10 years of service from the date of their initial appointments. 21. Considering all theses facts and circumstances, I am of the view that all petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularisation as well. Moreover, when the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9956 of 2009 was working and sought for regularisation of his service, I fail to understand as to how the impugned order came to be passed, not only denying his claim for regularisation, but also directing him not to come for work from 01.10.2009. This action of the third respondent does not stand to the scrutiny of this court in any manner. 22. Accordingly, considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, all the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.