Judgment : 1. W.P(MD)No.15529 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order in K.Dis.No.10236/E3/2006 dated 31.10.2012 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge the regular duty, viz., Hospital Worker, Government Hospital, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District within the time stipulated. 2. W.P(MD)No.15530 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order in K.Dis.No.10236/E3/2006 dated 31.10.2012 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge the regular duty, viz., Hospital Worker, Government Hospital, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District within the time stipulated. 3. W.P(MD)No.15531 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2585/N3/2012 dated 06.08.2012 passed by the third respondent and the consequential order in Na.Ka.No.195/2012 dated 08.08.2012 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 3 and 4 to permit the petitioner to discharge the regular duty viz., Hospital Worker (Out Sourcing Staff), within the time stipulated. 4. Brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows: 4.1. The petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.15529 and 15530 of 2012, were appointed as Hospital Workers (Out Sourcing Staff) at the Government Hospital, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District. Since there was a ban on recruitment for new appointment in the year 2001, the first respondent permitted to make appointments through outsourcing. As per the said scheme, they were appointed by an agency, viz., Society for Madurai Education and Women Development, through their reference letter dated 10.06.2005 and consequent to the same, they were appointed by the third respondent by his order dated 15.06.2005 and as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 07.03.2005. After rendering their blemishless service for eight years, the petitioners approached the authorities concerned for their regularisation by their representations dated 03.10.2012 and 05.10.2012. Since those representations were not considered, they filed W.P(MD)Nos.14126 and 14127 of 2012 before this court and pending the said writ petitions, the impugned orders came to be passed and therefore, they withdrew the writ petitions. Challenging the said impugned orders, the petitioners in W.P(MD)No.15529 and 15530 of 2012 are before this Court. 4.2. Since those representations were not considered, they filed W.P(MD)Nos.14126 and 14127 of 2012 before this court and pending the said writ petitions, the impugned orders came to be passed and therefore, they withdrew the writ petitions. Challenging the said impugned orders, the petitioners in W.P(MD)No.15529 and 15530 of 2012 are before this Court. 4.2. As far as the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.15531 of 2012 is concerned, he was also appointed as Hospital Worker (Out Sourcing Staff) at the Government Hospital, Singampunari, Sivagangai District, as per the above said scheme, by an agency, viz., Society for Madurai Education and Women Development and thereafter, his appointment was made by the third respondent through his proceedings dated 12.05.2006. He has also been rendering blemishless service since his appointment. Seeking regularisation of his services, he is before this Court. 4.3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent in W.P(MD)Nos.15529 and 15530 of 2012, it is contended that the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.15529 and 15530 of 2012 were only allowed to work as Outsourced persons and they had never been appointed as Hospital Workers based on the MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed between the said Society with the second respondent. It is further contended that the claim for absorbing the services of the Outsourced employees in regular time scale of pay came to be rejected by this Court in W.P.No.13001 of 2008 [Tamil Nadu Arasu Paniyalar Sangam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, decided on 17.08.2011]. The claim of the petitioners for continuity of service and benefits with effect from their date of appointment, is unsustainable. The impugned orders have been passed by terminating the services of the petitioners, based on the G.O.No.(2D)56, dated 09.07.2012 which emerged out of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13001 of 2008. Hence, the impugned orders are sustainable in law. 4.4. Whereas in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is contended that as per G.O.(2D)No.56, dated 09.07.2012, the absorption of outsourced employees on regular basis will run contrary to recruitment rules and therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. 4.4. Whereas in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is contended that as per G.O.(2D)No.56, dated 09.07.2012, the absorption of outsourced employees on regular basis will run contrary to recruitment rules and therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the similarly placed persons were granted the relief by this Court in W.P.Nos.30105 to 30111 of 2008, decided on 23.10.2009, and hence, he prayed for the same relief to that of the petitioners herein also. 6. Whereas the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavits filed by the authorities and submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with the G.O.(2D)No.56, dated 09.07.2012 and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. I have considered the rival submissions elaborately and scrutinised the materials available on record carefully. 8. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.Nos.30105 to 30111 of 2008, decided on 23.10.2009, has held as follows: "3. Mr. Ajay Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court in respect of other identically placed writ petitions disposed of granting certain directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in (P.Sithan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others made in W.P.No.28761 in batch cases dated 04.12.2008), in disposing of those cases, this Court followed the earlier order obtained by similarly placed workman. In Para-4 of the order, this Court observed as follows: "In view of the earlier orders there will be similar order in these cases also. These writ petitions are disposed of giving direction to the fourth respondent to give preference to the petitioners based on their earlier engagement either as Contract Drivers/Sanitary Workers/Hospital Workers/Lab Assistants while appointing any fresh candidate. The fourth respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and if they are found qualified, they should be given priority taking note of their experience. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are vacancies now available. The fourth respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and if they are found qualified, they should be given priority taking note of their experience. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are vacancies now available. Hence, petitioners are directed to submit their application before the fourth respondent along with the experience certificate issued by the concerned medical officers to the fourth respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent is directed to consider their claims even if their names are not sponsored by the employment exchange. It is made clear that since the petitioners are already engaged through outsourcing and performed the duties either as Drivers/Sanitary Workers/Hospital Workers/Lab Assistants, further sponsorship through employment exchange is not required to be made in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Writ Petitions are disposed of on the above terms." 2. In the light of the above, a similar direction is issued in the Writ petition also. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs." 9. Moreover, on a perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparently clear that the authority while passing the orders impugned herein, did not adduce any valid reasons and more so, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, though already representations were made on 03.10.2012 and 05.10.2012 (made by the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.15529 and 15530 of 2012), in this regard. None of the impugned orders deals with any of the claim of the petitioners, which would lead to the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Considering the over all circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners is also squarely covered by the above said judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.30105 to 30111 of 2008, decided on 23.10.2009 and accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders stand set aside and a similar direction as above, is issued to the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.