JUDGMENT S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Petitioners in W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012 are all working as Sanitary Workers in Madurai Municipal Corporation. Some of them were appointed as per Order, dated 9.7.1999 and others were appointed by Orders dated 26.11.1999 & 5.9.2000, respectively. By Order dated 9.7.1999, a total number of 81 persons were appointed, by Order dated 26.11.1999, a total number of 30 persons were appointed and by Order dated 5.9.2000, a total number of 93 persons were so appointed, as Sanitary Workers. These appointments were made as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. Subsequently, Government issued two more Government Orders under G.O.Ms. No. 71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 5.5.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006. As per the above two Government Orders, the Petitioners were all regularised as Sanitary Workers with effect from 31.10.2006. Their grievance is that such regularisation ought to have been given with effect from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment and not from 30.10.2006. With this grievance, the Petitioners have come up with W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012. 2. When the above Writ Petition came up for hearing before one of us (Justice S. Nagamuthu), the learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M. Anandan v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, 2012 (1) MLJ 240 , wherein, in similar circumstances, the Division Bench had ordered regularisation of the Employees from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, submitted that with a similar plea when three other Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4170 & 4171 of 2011 & 9296 of 2012 came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma), the learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the view taken in M. Anandan's case, referred to above. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for decision to constitute a Larger Bench to examine the correctness of the view taken in M. Anandan's case. Justice Vinod K. Sharma), the learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the view taken in M. Anandan's case, referred to above. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for decision to constitute a Larger Bench to examine the correctness of the view taken in M. Anandan's case. The learned Single Judge had framed the following question: “Whether an employee can claim regularisation from the date of their initial appointment, in absence of any statutory Rules?”. 3. When the matter was placed before a Division Bench, on the Orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, unfortunately, the above question was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petition, without answering the above question referred to by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma. Thus, the said question remained unanswered. However, the Division Bench held that regularisation should take effect only from the date of the Government Order and not from the date on which they had completed three years of service. It was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge (Justice S. Nagamuthu) that in W.A.(MD) No. 729 of 2013, yet another Division Bench had taken the view that such regularisation shall take place from the date on which the Sanitary Workers had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment. 4. Since there were conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches, one of us (Justice S. Nagamuthu), directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the following question. “Whether the view taken by the Division Bench in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4170 & 4171 of 2011 & 9296 of 2012 is the correct view or that of the other Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No. 729 of 2013 is the correct view?” 5. On the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this Full Bench has been constituted and accordingly W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012 is before this Bench, for answering the referred question. 6. The Appellants in W.A.(MD) No. 555 of 2010 had originally filed W.P.(MD) No. 10738 of 2006. In that Writ Petition, the Appellants contended that they were entitled for regularisation from the date of their initial appointment. 6. The Appellants in W.A.(MD) No. 555 of 2010 had originally filed W.P.(MD) No. 10738 of 2006. In that Writ Petition, the Appellants contended that they were entitled for regularisation from the date of their initial appointment. However, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by Order dated 21.4.2010, dismissed the Writ Petition, thereby holding that the regularisation cannot take effect from the date of their initial appointments. As against the same, the present Writ Appeal W.A.(MD) No. 555/2010 has been made. When this Writ Appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Selvam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Ravi, by Order dated 26.11.2013, the Division Bench had directed the Registry to place the Writ Appeal before the Full Bench. Thereafter, on the Orders of the Administrative Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren), W.A.(MD) No. 555/2010 has been listed before this Full Bench to be heard along with W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012. That is how, this Writ Appeal is before this Full Bench, wherein also the same question is involved. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1083/2012 Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned Counsel for the Appellants in W.A.(MD) No. 555/2010 Mr. M. Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. A.K. Baskara Pandian, appearing for the Respondents 1 & 2 in W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012 and Respondent No. 1 in W.A.(MD) No. 555 of 2010 and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 in W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012 and Mrs. S. Srimathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 in W.A.(MD) No. 555 of 2013. We have also perused the records, carefully. 8. Before venturing to resolve the question referred to us, let us have a quick look into the various Government Orders and the relevant Service Rules. 9. The post of “Sanitary Worker” in Municipal Corporations is governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporation Basic Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). According to the Rules, the service shall consist of the following categories of posts in Class IV, namely, Office Assistant, Watchman, Cleaner, Male/Female Attendant Unskilled worker and Sanitary Worker. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, the method of appointment to the post of Sanitary Worker is by direct recruitment. Rule 4 of the Rules deals with qualifications for such appointment. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, the method of appointment to the post of Sanitary Worker is by direct recruitment. Rule 4 of the Rules deals with qualifications for such appointment. For the post of Sanitary Worker, the qualification is that the candidates must be able to read and write Tamil. 10. From the above Rules, it is crystal clear that as against any permanent vacancy in the post of Sanitary Worker, appointment shall be made only by following the said method. 11. Then came G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. As found in the said G.O., the staff strength in various Municipal Corporations were all fixed as per the norms prescribed by the Government by Order dated 23.5.1942. For about 55 years, there was no change in the norms, despite the fact that the burden of work had increased phenomenally and the territory of the Corporations had also been enlarged. In this background, the Government took note of the fact that with the available number of Sanitary Workers in the Municipal Corporations it was too difficult to meet the demand. Therefore, the Government issued the said Government Order permitting the Municipal Corporations to create new posts of Sanitary Workers, based on need basis. The Government permitted the Municipal Corporations to pass Resolutions creating additional posts, after getting sanction from the Government and then to take steps to fill-up those newly created posts. Clause 4(6) of the said Government Order states that so far as the posts which were newly created as well as the vacancies as against the posts which were already sanctioned, the appointment shall be made only through Employment Exchanges and following the other established procedures. Clause 4(6) of the said Government Order is very significant, which reads as follows: 12. Based on the above Government Order, various Municipalities and Municipal Corporations created additional posts of Sanitary Workers and accordingly filled-up the said posts. So far as the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos. 1082/2012 and the Appellants in W.A.(MD) No. 555/2010 are concerned, they were all appointed, on various dates, as against the newly created posts in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. 13. So far as the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos. 1082/2012 and the Appellants in W.A.(MD) No. 555/2010 are concerned, they were all appointed, on various dates, as against the newly created posts in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. 13. As per Clause 4(6) of the above said Government Order, on completion of three years of service as Sanitary Workers, on consolidated pay, the Government ought to have examined the question as to whether they should be regularised. But, the Government did not do so. As a result, the Petitioners and the Appellants herein continued to work only on consolidated pay, that is from the date of their initial appointments. 14. Then came G.O.Ms. No. 71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 5.5.1998. This Government Order is, though relates to substitute workers and daily wagers, still it has some relevance to answer the referred question in this matter. Let us have a look into this Government Order also. After a number of appointments were made to the post of Sanitary Worker through Employment Exchanges, the substitute workers and daily wagers, who were already working in various Municipalities and Municipal corporations, raised a plea for absorption. In fact, there were some litigations also initiated before the High Court. Therefore, in order to safeguard the interest of such substitute workers and daily wagers, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 5.5.1998, and directed that as against the newly created posts of Sanitary Workers as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, the substitute workers shall also be absorbed depending upon their length of service and other requirements. Clause 6 of the said Government Order states that such substitute workers and daily wagers, who are absorbed, shall be paid only consolidated pay with effect from 1.5.1998 but, their services could be counted from the date of their initial appointments. Thus, this Government Order has nothing to do with the Sanitary Workers who appointed through Employment Exchanges, like the Petitioners and the Appellants herein. 15. From the facts narrated above, it is crystal clear that there were three categories of Sanitary Workers. The first category of Sanitary Workers are the ones, who had been appointed as against the permanent vacancies prior to G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. 15. From the facts narrated above, it is crystal clear that there were three categories of Sanitary Workers. The first category of Sanitary Workers are the ones, who had been appointed as against the permanent vacancies prior to G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. The second category of Sanitary Workers are the ones, who were appointed through Employment Exchanges as against the newly created posts as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. The third category of Sanitary Workers are the ones, who were absorbed with effect from 1.5.1998, as per G.O.Ms. No. 71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 5.5.1998, as against the newly created posts as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. 16. For the purpose of our discussion, it is not necessary to refer to the Sanitary Workers, who were appointed on regular basis, as against the permanent vacancies prior to G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. So far as the Sanitary Workers referred to as second and third categories, as above, they continue to work only on consolidated pay for several years. There were several representations in respect of their request for regularisation of their services. Having taken note of the same, G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006, came to be issued. Thus, this Government Order is very crucial for the purpose of our discussion. Clause 4 of the said Order states that the question of regularisation of these employees could not be considered between 29.11.2001 & 7.2.2006 because the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.11.2001, thereby completely banning filling-up of all vacant posts by direct recruitment. The ban came to be lifted by the Government only from 7.2.2006, as per G.O.Ms. No. 14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 7.2.2006. Thus, after the ban was lifted, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006. Clauses 5 & 6 of the said Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006) read as follows: “5. They accordingly direct the Appointing Authorities viz.. No. 14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 7.2.2006. Thus, after the ban was lifted, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006. Clauses 5 & 6 of the said Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006) read as follows: “5. They accordingly direct the Appointing Authorities viz.. Municipal Commissioner, Grade-III, Municipal Commissioners and Commissioners of Municipal Corporations (except Chennai) to appoint the employees on consolidated pay and NMRs on daily wages on their roll as on 1.10.1996 in respect of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations (except Chennai) and as on 31.12.1996 in respect of Grade-III Municipalities in the vacant posts and to regularize their services in the regular post, from the date of issue of this order subject to the following conditions: (i) Sanctioned posts should be available. (ii) Persons should fulfill all educational and other qualifications, and (iii) Establishment (pay and pension) expenditure of the Urban Local Body should not exceed 49% of revenue after filling up of posts. 6. The Appointing Authorities are strictly advised not to appoint any person on daily wages or on consolidated pay in the Municipalities and in the Municipal Corporations in future.” 17. It is the contention of the Respondents that as per Clause 5 of the said Government Order, regularisation, if any made, shall take effect only from the date of issue of the said Government Order, namely on 23.2.2006. It is, after the issuance of the above G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006, the Petitioners and the Appellants herein have been regularised with effect from 23.2.2006. In this regard, the learned Counsel Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 in W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012, would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Madalaimuthu v. State of T.N., 2006 (6) SCC 558, wherein, in Paragraph 24, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “24. On a consideration on the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited on their behalf, the consistent view appears to be the one canvassed on behalf of the Appellants. The decisions cited by Mr. Rao have been rendered in the context of Rule 10(a)(i)(1) and the other relevant rules, which are also applicable to the facts of the instant case. The decisions cited by Mr. Rao have been rendered in the context of Rule 10(a)(i)(1) and the other relevant rules, which are also applicable to the facts of the instant case. Apart from the above, the law is well settled that initial appointment to a post without recourse to the Rules of Recruitment is not an appointment to a service as contemplated under Rule 2(1) of the General Rules, notwithstanding the fact that such appointee is called upon to perform duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service. In fact, Rule 39(c) of the General Rules indicates that a person temporarily promoted in terms of Rule 39(a) is required to be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service who is entitled to the promotion under the Rules. It stands to reason that a person, who is appointed temporarily to discharge the functions in a particular post without recourse to the Recruitment Rules, cannot be said to be in service till such time as his appointment is regularised. It, therefore, follows that it is only from the date on which his services are regularised that such appointee can count his seniority in the cadre.” (emphasis supplied) 18. According to the Petitioners and the Appellants herein, as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, regularisation should have been made on completion of three years of service from the date of their initial appointment. 19. Now, let us have a look into the conflicting Judgments of the Division Benches. In W.P.(MD) Nos. 4170 & 4171 of 2011, dated 2.4.2013, the Division Bench dealt with G.O.Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms-F Department, dated 28.2.2006, wherein the Government had directed regularisation of persons, who had completed 10 years of service, on daily wage basis. It was contended before the Division Bench that the regularisation of the Petitioners therein should have been given effect from the date of their initial entry into service. This submission was made based on G.O.Ms. No. 100, School Education Department, dated 13.4.2010. In Paragraph 7 of the Judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows. “7. On notice, the Respondents have filed a Counter Affidavit before this Court, wherein it is specifically pointed out that the claim of the Petitioners for regularisation from the date of their appointment cannot be sustained, as per G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 28.2.2006. In Paragraph 7 of the Judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows. “7. On notice, the Respondents have filed a Counter Affidavit before this Court, wherein it is specifically pointed out that the claim of the Petitioners for regularisation from the date of their appointment cannot be sustained, as per G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 28.2.2006. According to the Respondents, there is no illegality in regularising the service of the Petitioners in the posts which are permanent posts available, as per the directions of this Court. Considering the Orders of this Court and G.O.Ms. No. 22, no exception could be taken to the Orders passed by the Respondents on 29.7.2010, giving absorption and regularisation from 23.4.2010. Regarding the contentions made by the Respondents herein, it is an admitted fact that G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 28.2.2006, was only for regularisation of the employees working in various Government Departments, on daily wages basis and who have completed more than 10 years of service as on 1.1.2006. The said G.O. has no reference at all as regards regularisation of part-time employees. Regularisation has been done by the Government pursuant to the Orders of the Court. In the absence of any G.Os. before this Court claiming as a matter of right, regularisation from the date of appointment or expiry of one year, we do not find any justifiable ground to grant the relief sought for by the Petitioners. Apart from that, the question of regularisation would arise only in a sanctioned post which has fallen vacant and an employee appointed on part-time basis could be accommodated under permanent service only thereafter.” 20. A close reading of the above Judgment would go to show that in the said Judgment, the Division Bench had an occasion to consider only the scope of G.O.Ms. No. 22, School Education Department, dated 28.2.2006. The Division Bench held that G.O.Ms. Nos. 100, School Education Department, dated 13.4.2010, was only the permission given by the Government to the Director of School Education to take further action for regularisation of the services of the persons concerned, as against the available vacancies. Therefore, the Division Bench held that G.O.Ms. No. 100, dated 13.4.2010, has got nothing to do with the date of regularisation and instead regularisation should be given effect to as per G.O.Ms. Therefore, the Division Bench held that G.O.Ms. No. 100, dated 13.4.2010, has got nothing to do with the date of regularisation and instead regularisation should be given effect to as per G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 28.2.2006, only from the date of issuance of the G.O. The Judgment would further go to show that the Division Bench had no occasion to consider the Government Orders, namely G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, G.O.Ms. No. 21 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively. Thus, the Division Bench had no occasion to consider as to whether in the light of the Government Orders issued by the Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, the regularisation could be made from the date on which the Sanitary Workers had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment or from the date of G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench in W.P.(MD) No. 4170 & 4171 of 2011, dated 2.4.2013, need not be gone into by us, since the view expressed in the said Judgment has got nothing to do with the issues involved in the present litigations. 21. Now, let us have a look into the Judgment in The Executive Officer, Palladam (3rd Grade Municipality), Palladam v. C. Kittusamy, W.A. Nos. 47 & 385 of 2010, dated 23.6.2010. Regularisation of their services from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial entry into service. That claim was made in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997. That G.O. was issued directing to absorb NMR Employees, who were working in panchayats prior to 31.12.1996. Clause 4(6) of the said G.O. reads as follows: 22. A cursory comparison of the above Clause 4(6) of G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, would go to show that it is analogous to Clause 4(6) of G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. While examining the question as to whether as per G.O.Ms. A cursory comparison of the above Clause 4(6) of G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, would go to show that it is analogous to Clause 4(6) of G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. While examining the question as to whether as per G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, regularisation should be made from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial entry or from the date of G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, the Division Bench, by Judgment dated 23.6.2013, held that the Respondents therein were entitled to time-scale of pay from the date when they had completed three years of service on consolidated pay and not from any subsequent date. In this Judgment, the Division Bench had followed the earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai v. R. Sundaradas, W.A. No. 1454 of 2007, dated 19.12.2008. 23. In yet another judgment in W.A.(MD) No. 729 of 2013, a Division Bench of this Court considered G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, and G.O.Ms. No. 22. Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.2.2006, referred to above. The Division Bench had the benefit of another Division Bench Judgment in W.A. Nos. 47 & 385 of 2010 (referred to above) and finally, the Division Bench held in Paragraph 6 as follows: “6. As the learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the Respondents agreed that the matter in issue is covered by the said Judgment, the Writ Appeal is allowed in terms of the order made in Writ Appeal Nos. 47 & 385 of 2010. Hence, the Appellants are directed to grant regularisation of the Respondents' services from the date of completion of three years of respective services. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 24. A reading of the above Judgment in W.A.(MD) No. 729/2013 would reflect that the Division Bench had no occasion to refer to the relevant Government Orders, namely G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively. These are the relevant Government Orders pertaining to Sanitary Workers, who were appointed as against newly created posts as per G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively. These are the relevant Government Orders pertaining to Sanitary Workers, who were appointed as against newly created posts as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. 25. So far as the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 47 & 385 of 2010 is concerned, there, the Sweepers/Sanitary Workers, working in Town Panchayats, claimed benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997. In that case, the Division Bench had no occasion to consider the scope of G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively. It needs to be mentioned that the Judgment in W.A. No. 47 & 385 of 2010 was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of SLP and the SLP was dismissed at its threshold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though the fact remains so, the said Judgment in W.A. No. 47 & 385 of 2010 has got nothing to do with the issues relating to the regularisation of the Sanitary Workers working in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. As we have already pointed out, the above Judgment relates to sweepers and Sanitary Workers working in Panchayats, who were governed by different Government Orders. 26. The Judgment in W.A.(MD) No. 729 of 2013 relates to the Sanitary Workers working in Municipalities. But, the Division Bench had considered only G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997 and not the G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 &21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively. So far as G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997 is concerned, the said G.O. has got nothing to do with the Sanitary Workers employed on consolidated pay in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. There were only six categories of employees for whose benefit G.O.Ms. No. 199, dated 12.8.1997, was issued. They are Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary Maistry, Sweeper, Cross Pool Cleaner, Compost Mazdoor and Drainage Cleaner. Therefore, in our considered view, the said G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, cannot be made applicable to the Sanitary Workers working in Municipalities/Municipal Corporations. No. 199, dated 12.8.1997, was issued. They are Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary Maistry, Sweeper, Cross Pool Cleaner, Compost Mazdoor and Drainage Cleaner. Therefore, in our considered view, the said G.O.Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, cannot be made applicable to the Sanitary Workers working in Municipalities/Municipal Corporations. This point was not argued before the Division Bench and further it was not even brought to the notice of the Division Bench about G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively, referred to above. Therefore, we regret that we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No. 729 of 2013. 27. In our considered view, in the case of Sanitary Workers, who were appointed against the newly created posts in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.6.1997, their regularisation is governed by G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006. Such a regularisation, as per the said G.O., should take effect only from the date of G.O. and not from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment. Following are the reasons for our conclusion: (a) As we have already pointed out, appointments of the Petitioners and the Appellants herein, were not made as per the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Basic Service Rules, 1996. As per the said Rules, Sanitary Workers can be appointed only by direct recruitment, in time scale of pay. There is no provision in the Rules to appoint Sanitary Workers on consolidated pay. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Petitioners and the Appellants herein, who were all appointed, not as per the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Basic Service Rules, 1996, but, outside the scope of the said Rules, however, governed by the Orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. (b) As we have already pointed out, as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, new posts of Sanitary Workers were all created, on need basis. The said Government Order permitted filling-up of such newly created posts, through Employment Exchanges, on consolidated pay. That is how the Petitioners and the Appellants herein came to be appointed. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, new posts of Sanitary Workers were all created, on need basis. The said Government Order permitted filling-up of such newly created posts, through Employment Exchanges, on consolidated pay. That is how the Petitioners and the Appellants herein came to be appointed. (c) As per Clause 4(6) of G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, the said appointment was initially for a period of one year, which could be extended upto three years. As we have already extracted, as per Clause 4(6), on completion of three years, the Government would decide whether to regularise the services of such employees, so as to bring them into regular time scale of pay. Therefore, as per this Government Order, it is fallacious to contend that on completion of three years from the date of initial appointment, such appointed Sanitary Workers shall be regularised. (d) As narrated above, the Government thereafter examined the question of regularisation only in the year 2006 and accordingly issued G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006. The said Government Order directs that the regularisation shall be from the date of issue of the Government Order, namely 23.2.2006. (e) Thus, a conjoint reading of G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2005, would go to clearly show that on completion of three years of service from the date of initial appointment, the Government had an option to examine the question of regularisation, which the Government did only in 2006 and it is the wisdom of the Government to give regularisation from any date. (Vide Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Madalaimuthu v. State of T.N., 2006 (6) SCC 558). Unless such date fixed by the Government, giving effect to the regularisation, is proved to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or any other Constitutional provision, it cannot be held, in vacuum, that the said norms prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 21 for the purpose of regularisation is either illegal or unconstitutional. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that regularisation of such Sanitary Workers, who are governed by G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively, shall be only from 23.2.2006. No. 21 for the purpose of regularisation is either illegal or unconstitutional. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that regularisation of such Sanitary Workers, who are governed by G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively, shall be only from 23.2.2006. The contrary view expressed elsewhere in the Judgments referred to above, in our respectful view, are not correct. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the question referred to us as follows: (i) The view taken in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4170 & 4171 of 2011, dated 2.4.2013, has got nothing to do with the Sanitary Workers, working in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, who are governed by G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 & 23.2.2006, respectively. Therefore, we have not examined the correctness of the views expressed in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4170 & 4171 of 2011. (ii) The view expressed in W.A.(MD) No. 729/2013 is not the correct legal position in respect of Sanitary Workers, who are governed by G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, 71 & 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 and 23.2.2006, respectively and accordingly, we, with respect, overrule the same. (iii) Those Sanitary Workers, who were appointed as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997 or absorbed as per G.O.Ms. No. 71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 5.5.1998, are all governed by G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006, in respect of their regularisation in service and such regularisation shall take effect only from 23.2.2006 and not from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial entry into service. 29. We direct the Registry to list the Writ Appeal before the Division Bench and the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge.