JUDGMENT 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner was appointed as NMR worker in the Highways and Rural Works Department. The petitioner worked between 06.04.1988 and 22.08.1996. He rendered 3 years 5 months and 6 days of service. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 11.03.2009 of the second respondent refusing to regularise the service of the petitioner and to direct the second respondent to comply in terms of the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the order dated 11.02.2008 made in W.P.No.28484 of 2006 of this Court. 4. The petitioner and 13 others filed O.A.No.1543 of 1991 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, claiming regularisation in service. Similarly situated persons also filed Original Applications viz., O.A.No.1728, 1794, 1907, 2905, 3318, 3959 and 4130 of 1991, 6285 of 1993, 1492 of 1994, 1435, 1800, 2029, 2506 and 2571 of 1995. All the original applications were taken together and disposed of by a common order dated 17.05.1996. In paragraph 58, the Tribunal ordered as follows:- "58. In view of my discussion above these applications are ordered as follows:- 1. The services of those applicants who have been working for three years and more, as N.M.Rs., with short breaks, shall be regularized in their posts. If there is a gap of more than three months between period of termination and reappointment, that period may be excluded in the computation of three years period. 2. The process of identifying those persons who have been working for three years and more as N.M.Rs with short breaks, as above, shall be completed in a period of three months. 3. Depending upon the needs, those casual workers/N.M.Rs. who have been working for less than three years, shall continue to be engaged according to seniority and eligibility, till their services are regularized, in a phased manner, depending upon financial constraint. 4. There shall not be any new recruitment of N.M.Rs., till the services of the aforesaid applicants are regularised. 5. Such of those applicants, who are entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.702, Transport Department, dated 18.06.1981. G.O.No.185 Transport Department, dated 7.2.83 and G.O.No.95, Transport Department dated 04.02.88 shall be given the benefit of the same. This process shall be completed in three months." 5. 5. Such of those applicants, who are entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.702, Transport Department, dated 18.06.1981. G.O.No.185 Transport Department, dated 7.2.83 and G.O.No.95, Transport Department dated 04.02.88 shall be given the benefit of the same. This process shall be completed in three months." 5. Even as per the impugned order, the petitioner worked between 06.04.1988 and 22.08.1996, i.e., he was in service when the Tribunal passed the aforesaid order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 and etc batch. 6. Instead of complying with the direction issued by the Tribunal, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were orally terminated from service. Hence, those persons, including the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.7876 of 1997 seeking to declare that the oral termination as illegal and void and for a direction to the respondents viz., the Chief Engineer and the Divisional Engineer to reinstate them in service on a regular basis with effect from the date when their juniors were regularised in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the fact that the common order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch attained finality and the same was not questioned before this Court. 8. On abolition of the Tribunal, O.A.No.7876 of 1997 was transferred to this Court and the same was renumbered as W.P.No.28484 of 2006. There were 35 petitioners and the present petitioner is the 12th petitioner therein. 9. This Court disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.28484 of 2006 vide order dated 11.02.2008. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 may be usefully extracted here under:- "4. As far as the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch dated 17.05.1996 is concerned, that order has become final since no writ petition has been filed as against that. As per the said Government order, the case of those N.M.Rs who were not in employment on that date should also be considered, provided, if they have completed three years of service. As per Annexure -I of the Original Application, the petitioners have completed more than three years of service on the relevant date. As such, the petitioners, are entitled for the benefit of the direction issued in the above said Original Application. 5. As per Annexure -I of the Original Application, the petitioners have completed more than three years of service on the relevant date. As such, the petitioners, are entitled for the benefit of the direction issued in the above said Original Application. 5. Hence, the second respondent is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners in terms of the order passed in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch dated 17.05.1996 as referred above and also the subsequent Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006 and the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.33035 of 2006 batch and to pass orders within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs." 10. This Court has categorically held that the petitioner herein and others who filed W.P.No.28484 of 2006 are entitled to the relief as per judgment of the Tribunal dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. This Court directed the Chief Engineer to consider the claims of the petitioners therein in terms of the order passed in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch dated 17.05.1996 and also the order of this Court in W.P.No.33035 of 2006 batch and also the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006. 11. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, dated 11.02.2008, made in W.P.No.28484 of 2006, the Chief Engineer passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2009, refusing to regularise the service of the petitioner and others on the ground that they have not completed 10 years of service as per G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006. This writ petition is filed against the aforesaid order of the Chief Engineer. 12. A counter affidavit is filed refuting the allegations. It is stated that the impugned order was passed in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006, as directed by this Court in the order dated 11.02.2008 in W.P.No.28484 of 2006. An additional counter affidavit is also filed reiterating that the petitioner did not render 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 as per G.O.Ms.No.22 referred to above. 13. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that V.Kalliappan and 26 others filed W.P.No.36623 of 2004 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 09.12.2005 granting relief to those persons. 13. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that V.Kalliappan and 26 others filed W.P.No.36623 of 2004 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 09.12.2005 granting relief to those persons. After the said judgment, the Government took a policy decision regarding regularisation and time scale to the remaining NMRs i.e., other than the persons covered in W.P.No.36623 of 2004 dated 09.12.2005 and issued G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006. Hence, the petitioner who has not completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006, is not eligible for regularisation of service as per G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. 14. The learned Special Government has sought to justify the impugned order based on the order of this Court dated 11.02.2008 in W.P.No.28484 of 2006 and more particularly, paragraph 5 of the order, which is extracted hereunder:- "5. Hence, the second respondent is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners in terms of the order passed in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch dated 17.05.1996 as referred above and also the subsequent Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006 and the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.33035 of 2006 batch and to pass orders within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 15. It is true that this Court directed the Chief Engineer to take into account G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 while considering the claim of the petitioners. It is a different matter if this Court directed the Chief Engineer to consider the claim of the petitioners only in terms of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 alone. But this Court has categorically held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the direction issued in the order dated 17.05.1996 made in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. In paragraph 4, the learned Judge has observed that the petitioners have completed more than three years of service on the relevant date, and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. The learned Judge has also observed that the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch had attained finality. 16. The learned Judge has also observed that the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch had attained finality. 16. In the order dated 11.02.2008 made in W.P.No.28484 of 2006, apart from issuing direction to the Chief Engineer to take into account G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, the learned Judge also directed the Chief Engineer to take into account the order passed in W.P.No.33035 of 2006 batch. But the Chief Engineer failed to take into account the order dated 17.05.1996 passed in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch as well as the order passed in W.P.No.33035 of 2006 batch. On the other hand, the Chief Engineer, taking into account G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 alone had rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. 17. V.Kaliappan and 26 others, who were not parties before the Tribunal in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch filed W.P.No.36623 of 2004, seeking the relief of regularisation in terms of the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. By an order dated 09.12.2005, this Court allowed the writ petition in terms of the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. 18. Virtually, this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch, which is as follows:- The petitioners went before the Government seeking similar relief and they were denied on the ground that they have not obtained orders similar to the order referred to above. Inasmuch as there is no dispute that the petitioners herein are similarly placed like the applicants before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, they cannot be denied the benefit of the same relief. Accordingly, I am also inclined to dispose of the writ petition by giving the directions as given by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and they are extracted as hereunder:- "1. The services of those applicants who have been working for three years and more, as N.M.Rs., with short breaks, shall be regularized in their posts. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and reappointment, that period may be excluded in computing the three years period. 2. The process of identifying the persons, who have been working for three years and more as N.M.Rs with short breaks, as above, shall be completed on or before 30.04.2006. 3. Depending upon the needs, those casual workers/N.M.Rs. 2. The process of identifying the persons, who have been working for three years and more as N.M.Rs with short breaks, as above, shall be completed on or before 30.04.2006. 3. Depending upon the needs, those casual workers/N.M.Rs. who have been working for less than three years, shall continue to be engaged according to seniority and eligibility, till their services are regularized, in a phased manner, depending upon financial constraints. 4. There shall not be any new recruitment of N.M.Rs., till the services of the aforesaid applicants are regularised. 5. Such of those applicants, who are entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.702, Transport Department, dated 18.06.1981. G.O.No.185 Transport Department, dated 7.2.83 and G.O.No.95, Transport Department dated 04.02.88 shall be given the benefit of the same. This process shall be completed on or before 30.0.2006." 19. It is ironical that the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that they have regularised the service of V.Kaliappan and 26 others pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2005 in W.P.No.36623 of 2004. But they did not do so for the petitioners, who are covered by the order dated 17.05.1996 made in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. 20. The order dated 09.12.2005 in W.P.No.36623 of 2004 was taken on appeal in W.A.No.1260 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court, in which, I was a party, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.12.2009. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal solely on the basis of the order dated 17.05.1996 made in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. 21. Thereafter, the matter was taken to Apex Court by filing SLP-CC.No.14093 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 27.09.2010. 22. Thereafter, V.Kaliappan and and 26 others, petitioners in W.P.No.36623/2004 alone were regularised but not the petitioners in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. In my view, the petitioners in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch are better placed than the petitioners in W.P.No.36623 of 2004. 23. The petitioners in W.P.No.36623 of 2004 claimed the same relief as given in the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch and that was allowed by a learned single Judge and the Division Bench also confirmed the said order. Thereafter, when the matter was taken before the Apex court, the same was dismissed as stated above. Therefore, the respondents are not correct in regularising the service of the petitioners in W.P.No.36623 of 2004 alone and refusing to regularise other NMRs, who are parties in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. Thereafter, when the matter was taken before the Apex court, the same was dismissed as stated above. Therefore, the respondents are not correct in regularising the service of the petitioners in W.P.No.36623 of 2004 alone and refusing to regularise other NMRs, who are parties in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch. 23. The other NMRs, who were not parties in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 filed W.P.No.19959 of 2012 before this Court claiming similar relief as given in the order dated 09.12.2005 in W.P.No.36623 of 2004. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2012 in terms of the order dated 09.12.2005 in W.P.No.36623 of 2004. It is stated that the said order is stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2882 of 2012 dated 29.10.2012. 24. In my view, the claim of the petitioner is not based on the order of this Court dated 26.07.2012 in W.P.No.19959 of 2012. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner is based on the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch and also the order dated 11.02.2008 in W.P.No.28484 of 2006. 25. When petitioners, numbering 27 in W.P.No.36623 of 2004 claimed relief based on the order dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch and their services were regularised pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2005, which in turn was based on the order of the Tribunal dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch, the Chief Engineer is not correct in passing the impugned order refusing to regularise the service of the petitioner. 26. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the order dated 11.03.2009 in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 17.05.1996 in O.A.No.1543 of 1991 batch and also the order of this Court dated 11.02.2008 in W.P.No.28484 of 2006. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents herein to provide employment to the petitioner forthwith and regularise the service of the petitioner from the date on which his immediate junior was regularised, but on notional basis. 27. The writ petition stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.