JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as he has completed seven years in service. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis in October, 1993 and completed seven years period in the year 2000 and regularisation having not been granted to him, he filed writ petition SWP No. 1491/2002, wherein the official respondents have taken the stand that petitioner was disengaged for three and half months, therefore, he was not eligible to be regularised from the date of initial appointment. 3. To answer the said query, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was disengaged for committing alleged delinquency without any notice and the said disengagement order was challenged before this Court in SWP No. 1513/1999 and this Court, by order dated 22.10.1999, set aside the order of disengagement granting liberty to the respondents to proceed further in the matter. Further it was made clear that petitioner shall not be entitled to the wages from the date of his dis-engagement to the date of his joining. Even though liberty was granted, no further action was taken and the petitioner was allowed to join and is discharging his duty till date. 4. During pendency of the writ petition SWP No. 1491/2002, petitioner was granted regularisation by order dated 27.08.2010 and subsequently respondents considered the regularisation of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.11.2006. The said regularisation restricting the period from 16.11.2006 instead of October, 2000, has been challenged in SWP No. 685/2012. Since the issue in both the petitions being common, both the writ petitions were clubbed together for considering, as to whether the petitioner could be granted regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994 on completion of seven years of service. 5. The only reason stated in the objections filed in SWP No. 1491/2002, is that there was break in service of three and half months, therefore, the petitioner was not granted regularisation from October 2000. The same plea cannot be taken in the light of the order of this Court rendered in SWP No. 1513/1999, dated 22.10.1999, wherein disengagement was set aside and only wages for the said period were denied. 6. The same plea cannot be taken in the light of the order of this Court rendered in SWP No. 1513/1999, dated 22.10.1999, wherein disengagement was set aside and only wages for the said period were denied. 6. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get regularisation on completion of seven years from date of initial appointment as there was no break in the service. In light of the earlier order passed and the disengagement having been set aside, the petitioner is entitled to be regularised from October, 2000. Hence, both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to grant regularisation to the petitioner from October, 2000 instead of 16.11.2006. The consequential benefits arising out of the issue concerned shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. No costs.