ORDER : These writ petitions are filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with G.O.(Ms).No.39, Tourism and Culture Pan1(1) Department, dated 26.03.2007 and, also the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Pro.No.4675/B2/2000-2, dated 26.04.2007 and, quash the same, as far as the regularization of petitioners' service from the date of issuing the order is concerned and directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of service in the post of unskilled assistant from the date of initial appointment and grant all consequential benefits. 2. Since the issues and facts pertaining to these two writ petitions are similar in nature, these two writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have been appointed temporarily as unskilled worker at the 3rd respondent Institute on 07.03.1997 and from the date of appointment, they have been continuously working as such without any break. Though they are working for long years, neither their service had been regularized nor time scale of pay had been given to them. Therefore, the petitioners had been repeatedly requesting to regularize their service. In this context, the 3rd respondent Institute, who is the immediate employer of the petitioners, had given a detailed recommendation to the Government i.e., the 1st respondent on 29.11.2004 through the 2nd respondent that these two petitioners have been appointed pursuant to their name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange as unskilled worker. Of course, pursuant to the permission given by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.108, Tamil Development and Cultural Department, dated 27.05.1996, these petitioners had been working from the date of appointment i.e. on 07.03.1997 and therefore, since the appointment had been made only in pursuant to the Government order, where the permission had been granted to make such appointment and their service is very much required at the 3rd respondent institute, hence their service can be regularized. 4. Inspite of the such recommendation having been made by the 3rd respondent, since the 1st and 2nd respondents have not come forward to regularize the service of the petitioners, they had approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation by filing the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6328 and 6329 of 2005. 4. Inspite of the such recommendation having been made by the 3rd respondent, since the 1st and 2nd respondents have not come forward to regularize the service of the petitioners, they had approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation by filing the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6328 and 6329 of 2005. The above said petitions were heard together and a common order was passed by this Court dated 25.02.2005, wherein a direction was issued to the 1st respondent therein to pass final orders on the recommendations of the third respondent dated 29.11.2004 expeditiously and such orders shall be passed in accordance with law and the relevant rules, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 5. Only pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court as referred above, the 1st respondent therein has come forward to regularize the services of the petitioners by issuing G.O.Ms.No.39, Tourism and Culture 1(1)Department, dated 26.03.2007. Though in the said Government Order, the services of the petitioners had been regularized by fixing time scale of pay as 2550-55-2660-60-3200, such regularization had been given effect only from the date of issuance of such Government Order i.e., G.O.Ms.No.39, Tourism and Culture 1(1) Department, dated 26.03.2007. 6. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the petitioners had been regularized. Since they have not been regularized from the date of original or initial appointment, they had made several representations to the 3rd respondent Institute as well as the 2nd respondent in the month of April 2007. In spite of the said representations, the 2nd respondent has passed consequential order dated 26.04.2007 whereby the order of G.O.Ms.No.39, Tourism and Culture 1(1)Department, dated 26.03.2007 has been implemented, by then the service of the petitioners has been regularized only from 26.03.2007, the date on which, the said Government Order was issued. Aggrieved by the said orders, by which the regularization has been taken effect only from the date of issuance of the Government Order and not from the date of initial appointment, they approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petitions. 7. Mr. G. Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had been appointed only in the regular vacancies. 7. Mr. G. Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had been appointed only in the regular vacancies. As in the said vacancies, since permission was given to the 3rd respondent to make an appointment, after getting sponsorship of names from the concerned employment exchange, only pursuant to the order passed by the Government, i.e., the 1st respondent by issuing Government Order, the petitioners had been appointed as unskilled workers from 07.03.1997 onwards. From the date of appointment, they have been continuously working without any break. From the averments made by the 3rd respondent in the recommendatory communication dated 29.11.2004, it became known to every one that the petitioners had been doing duty to the utmost satisfaction of their employer and also they involved in taking the duties of other such unskilled workers, who had been retired. Therefore, the petitioners are fully entitled to claim regularization from the date of initial appointment, as their appointment is neither illegal nor irregular. Hence, the present impugned orders denying such regularization from the date of initial appointment are highly prejudicial to the fixation of payment to the petitioners and therefore, only with regard to this aspect, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Mr. Zakir Hussain, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners admittedly had been appointed only as temporary workers on daily wage basis, no time scale of pay was fixed on that and it is admitted case of the petitioners that, they did not receive any salary by way of time scale of pay at any point of time. They also know it at the time of appointment. Subsequently also, their appointments were continued as temporary and no time scale of payments were given to them therefore, based on which, they cannot claim any preferential treatment to get absorption of their appointment from the initial appointment itself. 9. They also know it at the time of appointment. Subsequently also, their appointments were continued as temporary and no time scale of payments were given to them therefore, based on which, they cannot claim any preferential treatment to get absorption of their appointment from the initial appointment itself. 9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would also submit, by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that, even though the recommendatory note was sent by the 3rd respondent on 29.11.2004, wherein the 3rd respondent has not even made a request or recommendation that the petitioners' services should be regularized from the date of initial appointment, all that the 3rd respondent has requested to the Government is that only on sympathetic ground, because these petitioners have aged and therefore, they cannot go for any other job, in order to save their family, their service may be regularised. 10. Further, the learned Government Advocate would submit that even in the order dated 25.02.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.6328 and 6329 of 2005, the direction given was only to pass final orders on the recommendation of the 3rd respondent Institute, dated 29.11.2004, in accordance with law and the relevant rules within the time framed by this Court. If at all, the case of the petitioners was accepted by this Court, in the earlier round of litigation itself, there would have been a specific direction from this Court to regularize their service from the date of initial appointment itself. In the absence of any such direction and also in view of the fact that the 3rd respondent Institute has recommended only to regularize these petitioners, the Government, after taking into account the direction issued by this Court as well as the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent, has decided to regularise the services of the petitioners. It is to show that prior to this regularization, there was no sanctioned post available at the 3rd respondent Institute to accommodate the petitioners and that is the reason why they had been appointed only as a daily wage basis and they had been working in that capacity, till they get regularization. It is to show that prior to this regularization, there was no sanctioned post available at the 3rd respondent Institute to accommodate the petitioners and that is the reason why they had been appointed only as a daily wage basis and they had been working in that capacity, till they get regularization. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the present decision taken by the Government, through the impugned order, giving regularisation to the petitioners, is only pursuant to the direction issued by this Court as well as the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent Institute through his letter dated 29.11.2004. That is the reason why the time scale of pay has not been fixed on the petitioners and once the time scale of pay is fixed afresh, the same shall be taken effect only from the date of issuance of the Government order, that is why the prospective regularization has been given to the petitioners. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that, the orders impugned are not required to be interfered by this court. 11. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both sides. 12. The fact that the petitioners were appointed on 07.03.1997 as unskilled temporary workers at the 3rd respondent Institute is not in dispute. When we go through the recommendatory note sent by the 3rd respondent Institute in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1455/A/04, dated 29.11.2004, it can be easily ascertained that the appointment of the petitioners had been made pursuant to the permission given by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.108, Tamil Development and Culture Department, dated 27.05.1996. Also the fact is that these petitioners were appointed only on getting sponsorship of name from the Employment Exchange. From the date of their appointment, these petitioners had been continuously working without any break. All these facts would disclose that the petitioners' appointment are not illegal appointments. Even for the sake of convenience, if these appointments ought to be treated as irregular appointment, the same can very well be rectified subsequently because the law is well settled in this regard. Only the illegal appointment can not be cured and the irregular appointment can very well be cured. 13. Even for the sake of convenience, if these appointments ought to be treated as irregular appointment, the same can very well be rectified subsequently because the law is well settled in this regard. Only the illegal appointment can not be cured and the irregular appointment can very well be cured. 13. Further, the averments made in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.04.2007(impugned order) and the 3rd respondent's proceedings dated 29.11.2004 reveal certain important aspects, as to how the services of these petitioners are very much essential and are required at the 3rd respondent Institute. In order to appreciate the said aspect in a better manner, the said averments made by the 3rd respondent in the recommendatory note dated 29.11.2004 are re-produced hereunder: "xxx" 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 [Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar and others], wherein it is stated in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16, which read as follows: "13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz., one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of clerk was regularised w.e.f.1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 01.01.2010. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the University for more than 29 years on the post of night guard and that he has served the College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3.1.2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar). 15. 15. The impugned order of the High Court in Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar dated 20.02.2013 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The authorities are directed to notionally regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3.1.2002, or the date on which the post became vacant whichever is later and without monetary benefit for the above period. However, the appellant shall be entitled to monetary benefits from 1.1.2010. The period from 3.1.2002 shall be taken for continuity of service and pensionary benefits. 16. The appeal is allowed in terms of the above. No costs." 15. By relying upon the above said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the Government decided to regularise the service of the petitioners, as they were appointed pursuant to the Government Order, and they had been appointed only on the basis of the name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and they had been continuously working without any break, their regularisation shall take only from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of issuance of the Government Order. 16. Even though the learned Government Advocate was trying to sustain the orders passed by the 1st respondent through the impugned government order giving only prospective of regularization to the petitioners, this Court finds that the reason adduced by the respondents for passing the orders giving prospective regularisation are unacceptable. The said reasons are as under: "The Honourable Court in order dated 25.02.2005 in W.P.No.6329 of 2005 ordered as follows: "first respondent is directed to pass final orders on the recommendations of the third respondent dated 29.11.2004 expeditiously and such orders shall be passed in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order". It is submitted that the above order does not specifically direct the respondents to regularise the petitioners service from the date of their initial appointment. It is submitted that the third respondent in his proposal dated 29.11.2004 has requested only to regularise the services of the petitioner on sympethetical basis. The third respondent has not made any specific recommendation to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment." 17. It is submitted that the third respondent in his proposal dated 29.11.2004 has requested only to regularise the services of the petitioner on sympethetical basis. The third respondent has not made any specific recommendation to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment." 17. If this is the reason, according to the respondents, for giving prospective regularization to say that, the earlier order of this Court has not given a specific direction to regularize the petitioners' service from the date of initial appointment and also the recommendatory proposal dated 29.11.2004 of the 3rd respondent Institute has not made any request to give retrospective regularisation from the date of appointment, such reasons, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be an acceptable reason. Since the appointment was made pursuant to the permission given by the Government and the petitioners' service are very much required in the day to day affairs of the 3rd respondent institute and they had been continuously working for several years and also initial appointment had been made pursuant to the name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the denial of giving regularisation from the date of initial appointment, without any plausible reason is totally unjustifiable and unsustainable. 18. Assuming that, the order of this Court has not specifically given any direction to regularise the service of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment, they cannot take advantage on it. In view of the sentence in the said order of this Court, where the learned Judge has given a direction to pass final orders on the recommendation of the 3rd respondent expeditiously and such order shall be passed in accordance with law and relevant rules, the words “in accordance with law and relevant rules” has to be strictly followed. The said order cannot be construed or interpreted to the convenience of the respondents without any sustainable reason. If at all the service of the petitioners are very much required in the 3rd respondent Institute and the Government has also decided to regularise their services of course on the recommendation of the immediate employer i.e. the third respondent, no rule or law would prevent the 1st respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had been illegally appointed by back door entry. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had been illegally appointed by back door entry. The facts remains that they had been appointed only on getting their name from the Employment Exchange and that too, after getting permission from the Government. Also their service are very much essential on the day to day affairs of the 3rd respondent Institute. Therefore, there is no acceptable reason available to the respondents to deny the regularization of the petitioners from the date of the initial appointment. 19. In view of all these reasons and discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the denial of regularisation to the petitioners from the initial appointment is absolutely unjustifiable and therefore, in so far as such denial has been made in the impugned orders is concerned, the said portion is set aside and it is hereby ordered that the petitioners shall be given regularization in their respective services from the date of their initial appointment i.e., 07.03.1997. 20. It is needless to mention that once such regularization is given from the date of initial appointment, the petitioners shall be entitled to get all other service benefits including monetary benefits. The needful as directed above shall be done and the final order has to be passed by giving modification to the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. These Writ Petitions are allowed as indicated above. No costs.