Judgment :- 1. Both these writ petitions are filed questioning the order of suspension and the consequential order not relieving the petitioners from service. 2. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No. 10811 of 2014 is suspended through G.O(3D)No.233 Public Works (E1) Department dated 07.10.1996, whereas the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10904 of 2014 is suspended through G.O (3D)No.222, Public Works (E1) Department, dated 07.10.1996. The consequential orders not permitting them to retire came to be passed on 28.02.2000 and 28.06.2004, respectively. 3. The common grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, is that even though the order of suspension came to be passed as early as on 07.10.1996, such suspension order is continuously in operation for all these years and such prolonged suspension causes great hardship to these writ petitioners. It is their further grievance that even though such suspension order was passed in the year 1996, till this date, the Department has not issued any charge memo and conducted the departmental proceedings. The petitioners further contended that in the case of co-delinquents in respect of the same set of allegations, this Court interfered with the order of suspension in W.P(MD)No.6452 of 2008, dated 15.10.2009, by setting aside the same and the said order has been conferred by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.585 of 2010 dated 27.09.2010. 4. It is further stated that Special Leave Petitions filed against the above referred order of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court also came to be dismissed on 26.02.2014 in a Special Leave Petition CC.No.2821-2822/2014. It is further contended that consequent upon the above said orders passed by the Court in respect of the co-delinquent, G.O.(D)No.117, dated 09.05.2014, has been passed, revoking the suspension and allowing the petitioner therein to retire from service. 5. Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the matters submitted that the petitioners are also similarly situated and their case is also the one of the prolonged suspension and consequently, the same is covered by the orders passed by this Court in respect of a co-delinquent, as discussed supra. 6. 5. Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the matters submitted that the petitioners are also similarly situated and their case is also the one of the prolonged suspension and consequently, the same is covered by the orders passed by this Court in respect of a co-delinquent, as discussed supra. 6. The counter affidavits are filed separately in both the matters on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 and 4, wherein it is contended that even though the petitioners herein have indulged in similar irregularities, like that of the other co-delinquent, the respondents are duty bound to examine each case and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek any relief on the ground of similarity between their cases and that of the co-delinquent, namely, K.Natarajan. 7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. In these cases, both the writ petitioners were placed under suspension on 07.10.1996, by passing G.Os in G.O.Nos.(3D) No.233 and 222 Public Works (E1) Department dated 07.10.1996, respectively. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are placed under suspension continuously all these years. It is not in dispute that the co-delinquent got his suspension set aside by an order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.6452 of 2008 dated 15.10.2009, which was confirmed upto the Apex Court. 9. It is seen that the said suspension order also came to be passed in respect of that person, namely, K.Natarajan, on the very same day, namely, 07.10.1996, on which the present impugned suspension orders were passed. Therefore, it is clear that all these persons were issued with the suspension order on the one and the same day in respect of the certain similar allegations. 10. In the counter affidavits, it is not disputed that the petitioners have also indulged in similar irregularities. When such being the fact we need to see as to on what ground the earlier writ petition was allowed in respect of the other delinquent. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court would show that the impugned order therein was set aside only on the reason that the same being a prolonged suspension. For proper appreciation, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order of the learned Single Judge, may be referred as extracted below: "4. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court would show that the impugned order therein was set aside only on the reason that the same being a prolonged suspension. For proper appreciation, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order of the learned Single Judge, may be referred as extracted below: "4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsels. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order was passed in the year 1996 and for the past 13 years no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case and criminal trail is pending. By reason of the suspension order, the petitioner was not allowed to retire. Though in the writ petition in W.P.No.103288 of 2001, the Division Bench confirmed the suspension order, the respondents were also directed to consider whether the suspension should be allowed to continue or whether the person can be reinstated as per the Division Bench Judgment cited therein within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and even thereafter the respondents have not taken any steps to review the order as directed by the division Bench. Further, in similar matter in W.P.No.6441 of 2006 in respect of another person who was also involved in the same offence this Court set aside the suspension order on the ground of prolonged nature. Further, following the Judgment of this Court I have also set aside the suspension order on the ground that after filing the charge sheet there is no need to keep the petitioner under suspension. 5. Therefore, considering all these facts, I am inclined to set aside the order of suspension and the order of suspension is set aside." 12. Thus, it clear that the reason for setting aside the order of suspension is that the same was a prolonged one, I am of the view that the same reason can be made applicable in both these writ petitioners as well. The respondents cannot contend that these matters are different in nature. 13. Further, the said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Honourable Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.585 of 2010, wherein the Honourable Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal, observed in paragraphs 2 and 3 thus: "2. The respondents cannot contend that these matters are different in nature. 13. Further, the said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Honourable Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.585 of 2010, wherein the Honourable Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal, observed in paragraphs 2 and 3 thus: "2. Admittedly, in respect of the other persons who were suspended along with the writ petitioner, their suspension were set aside and they were reinstated. Even in respect of the respondent herein, originally he was suspended in the year 1995 and on his approaching the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the order of stay was granted and he was reinstated. Again, he was suspended only on the ground that Vigilance and Anti-Corruption case is pending against the respondent and for the past fourteen years, no steps have been taken either by filing any charge against the respondent or conducting any disciplinary proceedings, or in reviewing the order of suspension. 3. In such circumstances, in our view, the learned Single Judge has correctly considered the case of the respondent herein and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of suspension, which requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs." 14. Further, the appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 26.02.2014, in S.L.P.(Civil)No.2821-2822/2014 dated 26.02.2014 by observing as follows: "The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits." 15. A perusal of the order of the Honourable Apex Court would show that the SLP was dismissed not only on the ground of delay and also on merits. Thereafter, the Government passed G.O(D)No.117 PWD (E1) Department, dated 09.05.2014, implementing the above said orders and thereby revoked the order of suspension and allowed the said delinquent, namely K.Natarajan, to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. When that being the admitted factual position in respect of a similarly situated delinquent, I find that the petitioners are also entitled to the very same benefit which the respondents cannot dispute or deny. 16. Accordingly, by following the above said orders passed by this Court as well as by the Honourable Apex Court, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. 16. Accordingly, by following the above said orders passed by this Court as well as by the Honourable Apex Court, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Since this Court sets aside the order of suspension as well as the consequential orders not permitting them to retire, it follows that the first respondent has to pass appropriate G.Os revoking the suspension order and allow the petitioners to retire on attaining their respective age of superannuation. Needless to say, once such order is passed, the respondents are bound to disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioners without any further delay. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.