JUDGMENT : Prayer in WP.No.27958/13: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the G.O.(Ms.)No.173, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing (AH.6) Department dated 10.07.2013 to quash the same in so far as paragraph-5 therein in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned and to consequently direct the respondents to suitably modify the said clause by regularizing the services of the petitioners on completion of 5 years from the date of their initial appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.1527 dated 28.08.1985 and to extend the benefits of pensionable scheme, pension and other pensionary benefits thereto forthwith. WP.Nos.27959, 27960 & 28051/13: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the G.O.(Ms.)No.134, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing (AH.6) Department dated 12.11.2009 to quash the same in so far as paragraph-3(II) therein in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned and to consequently direct the respondents to suitably modify the said clause by regularizing the services of the petitioners on completion of 5 years from the date of their initial appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.1527 dated 28.08.1985 and to extend the benefits of pensionable scheme, pension and other pensionary benefits thereto forthwith. WP.No.28501/13: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the G.O.(Ms.)No.134, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing (AH.6) Department dated 12.11.2009 to quash the same in so far as paragraph-3(II) therein in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned and to consequently direct the respondents to suitably modify the said clause by regularizing the services of the petitioners on completion of 5 years from the date of their initial appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.1527 dated 28.08.1985 and to extend the benefits of pensionable scheme, pension and other pensionary benefits thereto forthwith. 1. 1. The instant writ petitions are filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the G.O.(Ms.)No.173, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing (AH.6) Department dated 10.07.2013 and G.O.(Ms.)No.134, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing (AH.6) Department dated 12.11.2009, to quash the same in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned and to consequently direct the respondents to suitably modify the said clause by regularizing the services of the petitioners on completion of 5 years from the date of their initial appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.1527 dated 28.08.1985 and to extend the benefits of pensionable scheme, pension and other pensionary benefits thereto forthwith. 2. The petitioners on being sponsored by employment exchange was appointed as daily wage attendant on various dates in different veterinary hospitals. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1527, Agroculture (AH.VIII) Department dated 28.08.1985. The said G.O. provided that person appointed to the hospitals as Animal Husbandries Assistant from contingencies who have put in service of not less that five years would be regularized in the services. It is also provided that the candidate must possess VIII standard and must have ability to handle livestock and must know cycling. The relevant portion of the amendment G.O.Ms.No.1527, Agroculture (AH.VIII) Department dated 28.08.1985, reads as under: "3. Appointment: Appointment to the post shall be made among the holders of the post of Animal Husbandry Assistants paid from contingencies who have put in a service of not less than five years. Provided that if no suitable candidate for the holders of the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant paid from contingencies is available, appointment shall be made by direct recruitment through the Employment Exchange. 5. Qualification: (a) Age: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post by direct recruitment is he has completed or will complete 28 years of age on the date of selection for appointment to the post. Provided that a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall not be eligible for appointment to the post. If he has not completed 33 years of age on the date of selection for appointment to the post. Provided further, that this age limit shall not apply to persons appointed to the post from among the holders of the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant paid from contingencies and ex-serviceman. If he has not completed 33 years of age on the date of selection for appointment to the post. Provided further, that this age limit shall not apply to persons appointed to the post from among the holders of the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant paid from contingencies and ex-serviceman. (b) Other Qualification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post unless he possess the following qualifications, namely: (i) Must have studied up to VIII Standard (ii) Must have ability to handle livestock and (iii) Must know cycling Provided that ex-servicemen and Animal Husbandry Assistants paid from contingencies shall be eligible for appointment to the post, if they are able to read and write Tamil." 3. The petitioners states that by virtue of the said G.O. they were entitled to be regularized after putting in five years of services. The petitioner states that the Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.173, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing (AH.6) Department dated 10.07.2013, by which the services of the petitioners were regularized from the date of the passing of the Government order and not after completing five years after their initial appointment. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1527, Agroculture (AH.VIII) Department dated 28.08.1985, which prescribes that on completion of five years, they are entitled to be regularized. The petitioner also relied on G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.F) Department, dated 10.10.1988, which also states that such of persons sponsored by employment exchange were appointed in regular vacancies be regularized provided they have the requisite qualification. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.F) Department, dated 10.10.1988, reads as under: "After careful consideration the Government accept the decision of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Joint Council and direct that the persons appointed on daily wages to discharge the functions of the posts in the Tamil Nadu Basic Services through Employment Exchange initially, be appointed against the regular vacancies that may arise in these posts on time scale of pay under the same appointing authority as direct recruits without their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange once again, provided they were fully qualified for such posts at the time of initial appointment on daily wages that is with reference to age and educational qualification, etc." 4. The respondents states that though the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis, they are not paid from contingencies, and so they are not entitled to be benefit of the Government orders. The respondents also states that the petitioners have not been sponsored through the employment exchange. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.226 and 491 of 2004. In this case also the issue arises for regularizing the service of the person who have joined in the Animal Husbandry Department as casual workers. The learned Division Bench after going through the various other orders passed by this Court, directed that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized after five years from the date of their initial appointment. Similarly in a batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.10974 of 2009 and 25254 of 2008 dated 14.02.2018, has observed as under: "10. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioners are not entitled for regularization from the date of their initial appointment, since their initial appointment was irregular and subsequently regularised by G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 28.08.2008. The substance of the objections as found in paragraph V of the counter affidavit is extracted below: “V) It is submitted that the services of the petitioners whose appointment were irregular have been regularized with effect from 28.08.2008 as per G.O.Ms.No.117, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH-7) Department, dated 28.08.2008, following the guidelines issued in U.O.Note No.16076/S/95-9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 05.02.1996 and there is an order in para No.4 of the above Government Order regarding sanctioning of annual increments only on completion of one year of service from the date of regularization, which will be the date of Government Order i.e. 28.08.2008. Hence, they are eligible to get next increment only on 01.07.2009. Therefore, necessary orders have been issued for cancelling the increments already santioned and recovery of increments paid to those sanctioned increments before 28.08.2008. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the second respondent.” 11. Therefore, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ petitions. Therefore, necessary orders have been issued for cancelling the increments already santioned and recovery of increments paid to those sanctioned increments before 28.08.2008. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the second respondent.” 11. Therefore, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ petitions. However, as regards the order passed by the learned Division Bench as aforementioned, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the issue raised in the writ appeals are identical as that of the issues raised in the present writ petitions. 12. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel as above, this Court is bound by the decision of the learned Division Bench as the Division Bench order dated 05.11.2013, passed in W.A.Nos.226 and 491 of 2012, wherein, the operative portion of the learned Division Bench order is also extracted supra. Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the orders passed by the learned Division Bench and also the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Department has implemented the orders of the learned Division Bench in respect of those similarly placed persons, this Court does not see any justification for taking a different view in the matter. Moreover, the orders passed by the learned Division Bench is binding on this Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petitions as prayed for. 13. In the above circumstances, the impugned in G.O.No.117, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 28.08.2008, is hereby set aside, insofar as it restricts regularization of service of the petitioners with effect from the date of issue of the Government Order. There shall be consequential direction to the respondents to grant regularisation to all the petitioners herein from the date of their original appointment i.e., 2000-01 with all monetary benefits like grant of annual increment except the arrears of pay etc. The consequential direction shall be complied with by the respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." The above judgment have extended the same benefits to the petitioners herein. In another judgment in WP.No.22168 dated 2009 dated 17.11.2016, once again this Court regularized the persons from the date of their initial appointment. 6. In another judgment in WP.No.22168 dated 2009 dated 17.11.2016, once again this Court regularized the persons from the date of their initial appointment. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are similarly situated to those who were given benefits of G.O.(Ms.)No.173, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing (AH.6) Department dated 10.07.2013, wherein the Government has given the benefit of regularization after five years of completion of service and thus benefit is not deferred to the date of the order regularizing the workmen. Further perusal of the appointment order shows that all other petitioners sponsored from employment exchange has working as daily wagers. 7. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed, in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.226 and 491 of 2004 dated 05.11.2013 and the Single Judge order in WP.Nos.10974 of 2009 and 25254 of 2008 dated 14.02.2018, for the simple reason that the writ petitioners are identically situated to the petitioners in the said writ petitions. The respondents are directed to implement the order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.