Judgment V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash paragraph No.3 of G.O. (Perm) No.540, Revenue Department, dated 20.10.2010, so far it relates to the service and monetary benefits and consequently, direct the first respondent to create a post and regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of his original joining i.e., on 20.02.1991 and grant all service and monetary benefits from his original date of joining. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Watchman on daily wage basis through the District Employment Exchange, Ramanathapuram and joined duty with effect from 20.02.1991 in the Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. Though, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, stating that the services of the employees working in various Departments of the Government on daily wages and who have completed more than ten years of service as on 01.01.2006, have to be regularised and proposals may be sent to the Government by the Departments concerned, the petitioner's service was not regularised, as per the said Government Order. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.29 of 2009 seeking a direction to the second respondent to send proposals to the first respondent for regularising the services of the petitioner as per the Government Order, dated 28.02.2006 and further direct the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner as per the said Government Order. This Court, by order dated 16.03.2009, directed the Additional Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5, to forward the proposals to the first respondent and further directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration the length of service put in by the petitioner and the object in bringing the daily wage employees set out in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Accordingly, vide G.O.(perm) No.540, Revenue Department, dated 20.10.2010, the petitioner's services were regularised from the date of issuance of the order i.e., from 20.10.2010. According to the petitioner, he was appointed through Employment Exchange and working from 1991 continuously without any break on daily wage basis till date and now, he is working as Watchman in the Taluk Office, Mudukulathur. Accordingly, vide G.O.(perm) No.540, Revenue Department, dated 20.10.2010, the petitioner's services were regularised from the date of issuance of the order i.e., from 20.10.2010. According to the petitioner, he was appointed through Employment Exchange and working from 1991 continuously without any break on daily wage basis till date and now, he is working as Watchman in the Taluk Office, Mudukulathur. As per the impugned order dated 20.10.2010, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, who is in charge of the post of Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, has created one post of Watchman in the regular time scale of pay in the Taluk Office, Mudukulathur, from the date of issuance of the Government Order. After extracting work of a Watchman from the year 1991, the respondents cannot ignore the earlier period and create the post of Watchman only in the year 2010, so as to deny the time scale to the petitioner from the date of joining. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments: (i) Indian Council of Medical Research vs. K. Rajalakshmi, 2005 (1) CTC 488 (ii) State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Others, 2006 (1) SCC 667 (iii) V. Perumal vs. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, 2006 (2) MLJ 339 (iv) A. Somasundaram vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another, W.P. (MD) No. 8931 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007 (v) P. Karuppiah vs. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and Others, W.P. (MD) No. 3781 of 2009, dated 29.4.2009 (vi) T. Balakrishnamony vs. Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai and another, W.P. (MD) No. 9804 of 2009, dated 5.10.2009 (vii) State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2587 (viii) State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and others, 2010 (9) SCC 247 (ix) Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. Thiru R. Govindaswamy and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 2726-2729 of 2014, dated 21.12.2014 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the proposal for regularising the service of the petitioner was sent to the first respondent and the first respondent has regularised the service of the petitioner with effect from 20.10.2010. 2726-2729 of 2014, dated 21.12.2014 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the proposal for regularising the service of the petitioner was sent to the first respondent and the first respondent has regularised the service of the petitioner with effect from 20.10.2010. The petitioner was working from the year 1991 only on daily wage basis and the petitioner's service was regularised creating a supernumerary post in the regular time scale till the regular vacancy arise in the said post or the retirement vacancy, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the supernumerary post could not be created with retrospective effect prior to the date of the Government Order. It is for the Government to create a night Watchman post in the regular time scale with a specified date. Considering the proposals of the second respondent, the first respondent has passed the impugned order regularising the service of the petitioner with effect from 20.10.2010. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. I have carefully considered the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The issue of ordering regularisation of post is no more res integra. This issue had already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi & Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 wherein in paragraph 48, it was held as under: "48. C.A. Nos. 3520-24 of 2002 have also to be allowed since the decision of the Zilla Parishads to make permanent the employees cannot be accepted as legal. Nor can the employees be directed to be treated as employees of the Government, in the circumstances. The direction of the High Court is found unsustainable." 8. The issue was again considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Secretary to Government, School Education Department vs. Thiru.R.Govindasamy and others, 2014 (4) SCC 769 wherein it has been held that part time Sweepers were not entitled to regularisation even when they had put in long service, because they are not working against the sanctioned posts. The issue was again considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Secretary to Government, School Education Department vs. Thiru.R.Govindasamy and others, 2014 (4) SCC 769 wherein it has been held that part time Sweepers were not entitled to regularisation even when they had put in long service, because they are not working against the sanctioned posts. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the earlier Judgment on this issue, especially, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others vs. Daya Lal & Others, AIR 2011 SC 1193 , wherein in paragraph 8, it has been held as follows:- "8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in Government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with Government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. [See: State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 : AIR 2006 SC 1806 : 2006 AIR SCW 1991, M. Raja vs. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani, 2006 (12) SCC 636 ; S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand, 2007 (8) SCC 279 : AIR 2007 SC 3021 : 2007 AIR SCW 5480; Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Mehar Chand, 2007 (15) SCC 680 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand, 2008 (10) SCC 1 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1177." 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. M. Seeniammal and others, 2014 (4) LW 657 in which I was a party, rejected the claim of part time employees for regularisation. It is well settled that the Courts cannot direct regularisation of employees even when they have put in long years of service. by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. M. Seeniammal and others, 2014 (4) LW 657 in which I was a party, rejected the claim of part time employees for regularisation. It is well settled that the Courts cannot direct regularisation of employees even when they have put in long years of service. Sympathy and sentiment cannot the valid grounds for regularisation of service in the absence of any right. 10. In the present case on hand, taking into consideration the petitioner's service, after creating a supernumerary post, he was regularised from the date of the Government Order, dated 20.10.2010. In view of the Judgments referred to above, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.