JUDGMENT (Prayer in W.P.7230 of 2020: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 22.12.1982 and accordingly grant all benefits for the purpose of consequential revision of retirement and pensionary benefits of the petitioner, in the light of Government Letter (Ms) No.369, Revenue and Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Survey and Settlement Wing, SS4(2) Section, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 dated 10.10.2019, within a limited time frame as fixed by this Court.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Junior Assistant from the date of their initial appointment and to grant consequential revised retirement and pensionary benefits. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistant on temporary basis in the Survey and Land Records Department on various dates during the year 1982, 1983 and 1984. Thereafter, their services were regularized on various dates from the year 1990 and subsequently, they retired from service on various dates. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the period from the date of their initial appointment till the date of regularization has not been taken into account with their regular service for revised pensionary benefits and other benefits. 3. The services of certain similarly placed persons, who were appointed as Junior Assistants on contract basis in the year 1964, 1965, 1966 in Medical and Rural Health Department, were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.451 Health and Family Welfare department dated 11.08.1998, and their service period on contract basis from the date of appointment till 12.10.1978 were taken into account for pensionary benefits. 4. Likewise, certain batch mates of the petitioner, who were initially appointed in the Survey and Land Records Department approached the Tribunal, thereafter, that case was transferred to the file of the High Court and renumbered as W.P.No.12477 of 2007 and in that Case, this Court has directed the Government to regularise their service from 25.06.1984 with all consequential benefits. The Appeal filed by the Government in W.A.No.550 of 2015 was also ended as against the Government, upholding the direction given by the single Judge. The Appeal filed by the Government in W.A.No.550 of 2015 was also ended as against the Government, upholding the direction given by the single Judge. Thereafter, the service of the petitioners therein, has been regularised from the date of their initial appointment, so as to provide retirement benefits and pension benefits. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners also being the similarly placed persons as that of the above petitioners in W.P.No.12477 of 2007, the respondents are bound to extend the same benefits to them. The petitioners made several representations to regularise their service from the date of initial appointment. However, no order has been passed. Hence the Writ petition. 6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that, as per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, all the employees, who rendered service under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis, on or after 01.01.1961 and absorbed in regular service before 01.04.2003, are eligible to count half of their service for retirement benefits along with regular service. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for counting only half of their service rendered in consolidated pay posts for sanction of pensionary benefits. 7. Further, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.A.550 of 2015, the Government had issued a G.O.369 Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 10.10.2019, regularising the service of the petitioners therein from the date of appointment till their regularisation, so as to provide retirement benefits and pension benefit alone. But, it is significant to state that the above order shall apply only to the petitioners therein (viz. G.Sivaraman and S.Ezhilarasi) and it would not apply to any other similarly placed persons, including petitioners. Therefore, the service period of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularisation, cannot be taken into account for retirement and pensionary benefits and thus, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the issues involved in the writ petitions are already decided by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(Md) No.4299 of 2015 dated 30.07.2019, and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for regularisation of service from the date of their initial appointment till the date of their regularisation. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. It is an admitted case that the petitioners were appointed in a sanctioned post of Junior Assistant, on consolidated pay, purely on temporary basis. However, later, their services were regularised on various dates from the year 1990. Therefore, the benefit of regularization was already granted to the petitioners. 10. As relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Madurai Bench of this Court in the case of K.Balu -Vs- The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 and another in W.P.(Md) No.4299 of 2015 dated 30.07.2019, has discussed the similar issues and following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others .vs. Umadevi(3) and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases and in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai .vs. R.Govindasamy reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 , has held that the case of the writ petitioner (therein) cannot be considered for grant of retrospective regularization from the date on which, he was engaged as daily wage employee. However, the temporary services, which all are eligible can be counted to the extend of 50% with reference to the amended rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978. If at all the services of the writ petitioner is falling under the Pension Rules, the authorities competent has to consider the case of the writ petitioner for counting of 50% of the services strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the eligibility of the writ petitioner is also to be considered in this regard. 11. This Court in a similar matter in W.P.No.16948 of 2020 dated 23.03.2022, following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Umadevi and Govindasamy Case) has held as follows. 3. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govindaswamy case (cited supra), this Court also had an occasion to deal with a similar matter in the case of Saraswathy v. State of Tamil Nadu [W.P.No.5529 of 2015 dated 18.12.2019] wherein this Court held as follows: 5. In the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Dept., Chennai, v. R. Govindaswamy and Others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Government. 6. In the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Dept., Chennai, v. R. Govindaswamy and Others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Government. 6. In yet another decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Another v. A. Singamuthu , reported in CDJ 2017 SC 239, it has been held in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 are extracted hereunder: 16. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, while allowing the writ filed by the respondent extended the benefit of the said G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and directed the appellants to grant regularization of respondent-s service from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits. The learned Judge failed to take note of the fact that as per G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006, the services of employees working in various government departments on full time daily wage basis, who have completed more than ten years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 will be regularized and not part time Masalchis like the respondent herein. In G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 18.06.2012, the Government made it clear that G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to full time daily wagers and not to part time daily wagers. Respondent was temporarily appointed part time worker as per Tamil Nadu Finance Code Volume (2) Appendix (5) and his appointment was completely temporary. The respondent being appointed as part time Masalchi, cannot compare himself to full time daily wagers and seek benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. The Single Judge also failed to consider that the Government did not grant regularization of services of any part time employee on completion of ten years of his service as envisaged under the G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006. 17. The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. The respondent was appointed on 01.04.1989 and completed ten years of service on 31.03.1999. 17. The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. The respondent was appointed on 01.04.1989 and completed ten years of service on 31.03.1999. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, if the respondent is to be given monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of service, that is from 01.04.1999 till the date of his regularization that is 18.06.2012, the financial commitment to the State would be around Rs.10,85,113/-(approximately) towards back wages apart from pension which will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of Registration Department, about 172 persons were regularized under various G.Os. and if the impugned order is sustained, the Government will have to pay the back wages to all those persons from the date of completion of ten years in service and this will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. Since the impugned order directing regularization of the respondent from the date of completion of their ten years would adversely affect the State exchequer in a huge manner, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score also. 18. It is pertinent to note that even the regularization of services of part time employees vide G.O.(Rt.) No.505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14.10.2009 and G.O.(2D) No.32 Finance (T.A. 2) Department dated 26.03.2010 was effected by extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28.02.2006 only from the date of Government Orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. The Division Bench also failed to take note that G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to full time daily wage employees and who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 and not to part time employees. As per G.O.(Rt.) No.84 dated 18.06.2012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of Government Order regularizing his service that is 18.06.2012. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside”. 7. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside”. 7. In the light of the decision cited supra, there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs in this writ petition.” 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar General of India V. Thippa Setty [ (1998) 8 SCC 690 ] has held as under: “2. We have heard counsel for both sides and perused the orders of the Tribunal dated 16-12-1991 and 19-2-1993. By the previous order, the Tribunal-s direction was to regularise the respondents with effect from the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment, depending on the seniority list. That was a direction which was a flexible one leaving it to the management to consider from what date regularisation should take effect. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11-5-1985, the regularisation was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19-2-1993, the Tribunal has directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status with effect from 5-2-1981, that is, the date of their entry into service as Investigators. It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective. 3. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and restore the order of regularisation passed by the appellant. We allow the appeal accordingly with no order as to costs” 5. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra, and in view of the fact that the petitioners were not appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts, the petitioners cannot claim regularisation of their services from the date of initial appointment. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. 12. It is not disputed by the petitioners that, half of the service period rendered in consolidated pay and the full length of service rendered in time scale of pay was taken into account for calculation of pensionary benefits, as per pension Rules. Having got benefits of regularisation and pensionary benefits by counting half of the service in consolidated pay along with the full length of service in regular time scale of pay, now the petitioners cannot seek to regularise their service from the date of initial appointment, quoting the similarly placed persons ( viz. G.Sivaraman and S.Ezhilarasi). Having got benefits of regularisation and pensionary benefits by counting half of the service in consolidated pay along with the full length of service in regular time scale of pay, now the petitioners cannot seek to regularise their service from the date of initial appointment, quoting the similarly placed persons ( viz. G.Sivaraman and S.Ezhilarasi). Therefore, in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is not inclined to grant benefits of regularisation of service from the date of appointment to the petitioners. Further, the petitioners services were regularised from the year 1990 and they were retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on respective dates. In such circumstances, after lapse of several years, the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners. Thus, the writ petitions cannot be entertained on the ground of delay and latches also. 13. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.