JUDGMENT : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 04.05.2017 made in W.P.No.10031 of 2013 and 11348 of 2013.) 1. These intra-court appeals are instituted by the State against the orders of the learned single Judge dated 04.05.2017 made in W.P.Nos.10031 of 2013 and 11348 of 2013, wherein the writ court, directed the appellants herein to regularise the services of the respondents herein/writ petitioners from the date of their completion of five years of service from their initial appointment. 2. P.Chinnathambi, the respondent in W.A. No.670/2021 has filed W.P. No.10031 of 2013. F.John Bosco, respondent in W.A. No.710/2021 has filed W.P. No.11348 of 2013. The respondents in W.A. No.670/2021 W.A. No.710/2021 were originally appointed as Masalchi and Night Watchman on 13.01.1982 and 29.01.1983 respectively, from a reference by the District Employment Exchange office. Their services were regularised as Masalchi and Night Watchman on 13.01.1987 and 29.01.1988 respectively by the proceedings of the Assistant Collector, Salem. As on the said date, the posts of Masalchi and Night Watchman were sanctioned posts. 3. While so, G.O. (Ms) No.388 Revenue (Service 8(2) Department dated 20.07.2007 was issued. The relevant portion of the said G.O. reads thus: “TAMIL” 4. The contention of the writ petitioners were that the services of several employees, who were appointed during the same time, were regularised on completion of five years of service. Therefore, the writ petitioners’ services also should have been regularised, either from the date of their appointment or the date on which they completed the five years of service. The appellants have issued the above Government Order, after the petitioners have completed more than 22 years of service, depriving the benefits, that ought to have been extended to the writ petitioners. The writ court also had found that the appointment of the respondents were through the District Employment Exchange and there was no irregularity in the appointment. The services of others who joined during the relevant period were all regularised after completion of five years. Hence the writ court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein vide order dated 04.05.2017. The relevant portion of the order of the writ court reads thus: “5. The respondents are unable to furnish any reason for restricting the regularization of the services with effect from 01.01.2006. Hence the writ court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein vide order dated 04.05.2017. The relevant portion of the order of the writ court reads thus: “5. The respondents are unable to furnish any reason for restricting the regularization of the services with effect from 01.01.2006. The date from which the regularization was extended to the petitioner has no relevance and no nexus. Such being the factum of the case, the Writ petition deserves to be considered and accordingly the Impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.388 Revenue (Personnel) 8(2) Department dated 20.07.2007 is quashed to the limited extent of date of regularization. The Sub Collector, Salem in his proceedings dated 17.1.1989, regularized the service of the Writ Petitioner on completion of his five years of service and the completion of five years falls on 13.01.1987. Accordingly the service of the petitioner is to be regularized with effect from 13.01.1987. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the Writ Petitioner will not claim any arrears of pay consequent to the retrospective regularization. All Notional benefits consequent to the retrospective regularization shall be extended to the Writ Petitioner and monetary benefits can be granted prospectively. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred these intra-court appeals. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is relevant to note that in Proceedings Na. Ka. No.26157/87/A3 dated 17.01.1989, the Assistant Collector, Salem, had already regularised the appointment of the writ petitioners with effect from 14.1.87 and 30.1.88 respectively and directed the appellants to fix time scale of pay from the date of regularisation and disburse them arrears of salary. Following the same, the Tahsildar, Yercaud, vide Proceedings in Na.Ka. No.646/89/B dated 20.05.1989 had issued orders fixing the pay and granting increment for the writ petitioners, who were appointed as Masalchi and Night Watchman. 7. Further in G.O. (Ms) No.1797 Revenue Department dated 19.10.1989, the Government ratified the retention of the staff, namely Masalchi and Night Watchman from 31.08.1989 in anticipation of the sanction of the said posts. While so, there is no reason as to why the impugned G.O. has been passed regularising the services of the writ petitioners only from the year 2006. Further in G.O. (Ms) No.1797 Revenue Department dated 19.10.1989, the Government ratified the retention of the staff, namely Masalchi and Night Watchman from 31.08.1989 in anticipation of the sanction of the said posts. While so, there is no reason as to why the impugned G.O. has been passed regularising the services of the writ petitioners only from the year 2006. The above act of issuing an order re-regularising the staff, who were already regularised by the authorities in the year 1989 only shows the callous attitude and lack of application of minds by the authorities. 8. When the respondents have already been fixed in the time scale of pay and have been receiving the said salary, the question of claiming arrears of pay will not apply. Once they are regularised in the year 1989 and the time scale has been fixed, they are also entitled to the benefit of pension. 9. The judgment of the Full Bench referred to by the learned Special Government Pleader in the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy reported in 2019 (6) CPC 705 is not applicable to the instant case, as the appointment and regularisation of the respondents/writ petitioners were well prior to the cut-off date, namely 01.04.2003. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the Government and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.