Judgment : 1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is e regular appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dep dated 27.05.1999 in anyone of the Town Panchayats in Coimbatore District. 2. The impugned order of the second respondent dated 22.05.2008 declines the regularizatio petitioner on the ground that he is not in employment after 2002. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Section Writer in the then Kurinchi Town Panchayat/t respondent on 01.11.1996 after being sponsored by the employment exchange. He was a employee receiving wages on daily rated basis. Now the Kurinchi town panchayat has Municipality. 4. The Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Wate Department, dated 27.05.1999 providing regularization of services of all NMR employees panchayats in future vacancies, if they are in service as on 31.12.1996. The said G.O.Ms.No. prohibits appointment of new NMRs till the NMRs, who were employed as on 31.12.19 regularized. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in employment as on 31.12.1996 and th he is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.125. 5. In fact, the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat in Coimbatore Zone, prepared a lis 01.06.2001 consisting of 29 employees belonging to various town panchayats in Coimbator who are entitled to regularization, as per G.O.Ms.No.125. As far as Kurinchi town panc concerned, employees in Sl.Nos.5 to 10 of the list were entitled to regularization. The nam petitioner found place at Sl.No.10. Out of six employees, whose names found place from Sl. 10, five employees from Sl.No.5 to 9 were regularized in service pursuant to the proceeding Assistant Director dated 26.12.2001 and the consequential proceedings of the third respo Na.Ka.No.1431/2001/A. Dated 18.01.2002. The same is not in dispute. 6. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Coimbatore Zone, sent a communicatio 29.08.2002 in Na.Ka.No.779/2002/Pe.6 that contrary to G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administra Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999, new NMRs are employed by various town pan and if such NMRs are employed, disciplinary action would be taken against the erring E Officers. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that though the said proceedings of the Assistant Director Panchayat, Coimbatore Zone, was for not employing new NMRs contrary to G.O.Ms.No.12 27.05.1999, the third respondent did not engage him after the issuance of the aforesaid proc of the Assistant Director. 8. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that though the said proceedings of the Assistant Director Panchayat, Coimbatore Zone, was for not employing new NMRs contrary to G.O.Ms.No.12 27.05.1999, the third respondent did not engage him after the issuance of the aforesaid proc of the Assistant Director. 8. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 27. in view of the proceedings of the Assistant Director dated 01.06.2001 and out of 29 employe were enlisted for regularization, 28 were regularized barring the petitioner. In the case of town panchayat, six persons were enlisted in the proceedings dated 01.06.2001 of the A Director, which contains 29 names, and five out of six were regularized barring the petitioner. 9. In fact, the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Coimbatore Zone, sent a procee Na.Ka.No.783/04/Pe4, dated 22.07.2004 to the second respondent recommending for regula of the services of the petitioner in any one of the vacancies in the town panchayats in Coi Zone. The third respondent also sent the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.28/2005/A4 dated 03.01 the second respondent recommending regularization of the services of the petitioner G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 27.05.1999. It is stated therein that the Assistant Director of Town Pa Coimbatore Zone, prepared a list of 29 persons eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No. out of 29 persons, 28 persons were regularized barring the petitioner. The third res recommended for regularizing the services of the petitioner in any one of the vacancies in t panchayats in Coimbatore Zone. 10. Though the Assistant Director issued the proceedings dated 22.07.2004 and the third res issued the proceedings dated 03.01.2005 recommending regularization of the petitioner, he regularized in service. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4989 of 2006 seeking for a directio respondents therein to regularise his service based on the proceedings of the third responde 03.01.2005 in Na.Ka.No.28/2005-A4. This Court disposed of W.P.No.4898 of 2006 on 03. directing the second respondent to absorb the petitioner in entry level post vacant in any on Town Panchayats/Municipalities in Coimbatore Zone within a period of four weeks. 11. The Government/the first respondent herein and the Commissioner, Municipal Administra second respondent herein preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.687 of 2006 and the Executive Kurinchi Municipality/the third respondent herein preferred W.A.No.789 of 2006 against the a order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2006. 11. The Government/the first respondent herein and the Commissioner, Municipal Administra second respondent herein preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.687 of 2006 and the Executive Kurinchi Municipality/the third respondent herein preferred W.A.No.789 of 2006 against the a order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2006. The writ appeals were disposed o direction to the first and second respondents herein to consider the case of the petitio regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC.3) Dep dated 23.02.2006, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that ord 12. While so, the second respondent passed the impugned order relying on the orde 25.01.2008 in W.A.Nos.687 and 789 of 2006, refusing to absorb the petitioner in any one of t panchayats in Coimbatore Zone. 13. A counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent. The aforesaid facts are not disputed. It that the absorption of the petitioner was declined in the impugned order on the ground petitioner was not employed after 2002. 14. It is not case of the respondents that the petitioner voluntarily absented from duty. It is the the petitioner that relying on the proceedings of the Assistant Director iss Na.Ka.No.779/2002/Pe 6, dated 29.08.2002 that no municipality shall engage new NM petitioner was not engaged on misconception. According to him, the proceedings of the A Director was relating to restraining the engagement of new NMRs as per G.O.Ms.No.125, same was not applicable to the persons already working as NMRs and that is not applicable to 15. The petitioner sent a representation dated 28.1.2004 stating that out of six persons ment the proceedings of the Assistant Director dated 01.06.2001, who were employed Kurinc panchayat, five were regularized and the petitioner alone was not regularized. The Assistant considering the said representation issued the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.783/04/Pe4 22.07.2004 recommending the absorption of the petitioner in anyone of the vacancies in t panchayats in Coimbatore Zone. That proceedings dated 22.07.2004 was addressed to the respondent. The same was not considered by the second respondent, while passing the im order. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in Kurinchi town panchayat, five persons were a as a regular workman as per G.O.Ms.No.125, and they initially joined in the services of the town panchayat between 01.04.1994 and 01.10.1996 on daily wage basis. The same was not considered by the second respondent, while passing the im order. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in Kurinchi town panchayat, five persons were a as a regular workman as per G.O.Ms.No.125, and they initially joined in the services of the town panchayat between 01.04.1994 and 01.10.1996 on daily wage basis. The details of persons, who were working as NMRs in Kurinchi Panchayat, as per proceedings dated 01.06 the Assistant Director are given hereunder : “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 5 “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 12/6/74 1/4/94 01129-96 Mk; 6 “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 12/5/66 1/7/94 “TAMIL”{/5043 -74 Mk; 7 “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 29/12/71 1/8/94 “TAMIL”/9809 -94 Mk; 8 “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 5/4/77 1/10/96 1102-97 Mk; 9 “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 14/5/64 1/10/96 “TAMIL”{/11083 -84 Mk; 10 “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 27/12/75 1/11/96 7261-92 Mk; The aforesaid details make it clear that out of five persons, two persons joined as N 01.10.1996 and they were absorbed in service. 17. The petitioner joined as NMR on 01.11.1996 and his name was also inclined in the li persons, who are working as NMRs in various town panchayats in Coimbatore Zone and a were absorbed barring the petitioner. The same is not in dispute. 18. It is also not disputed that the third respondent also sent the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2 dated 03.01.2005 for the absorption of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.125 and paragraph proceedings which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows : "31/12/96f;F “TAMIL” This proceedings of the third respondent also was not considered by the second respondent. 19. In view of the aforesaid proceedings dated 22.07.2004 and 03.01.2005 of the third respo am of the view that the petitioner is also entitled to absorption as per G.O.Ms.No.125, pa when he was included in the panel of the Assistant Director dated 01.06.2001 which cont names of 29 persons and 28 of them were absorbed barring the petitioner. 20. Further, as stated above, in view of the proceedings dated 22.07.2004 of the Assistant Di Panchayats, Coimbatore, and the proceedings dated 03.01.2005 of the third respondent addre the second respondent, the petitioner is entitled to absorption. 20. Further, as stated above, in view of the proceedings dated 22.07.2004 of the Assistant Di Panchayats, Coimbatore, and the proceedings dated 03.01.2005 of the third respondent addre the second respondent, the petitioner is entitled to absorption. The second respondent while the impugned order declining the absorption has not taken into account the aforesaid proc dated 22.07.2004 of the Assistant Director and dated 03.01.2005 addressed to the Assistant by the third respondent. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordin impugned order is quashed. 21. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner in anyone of the future vacancies in of the town panchayats or municipalities in Coimbatore Zone. 22. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected misce petition is closed.