JUDGMENT : M.S. RAMESH, J. Both these Writ Appeals arise out of a common order passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.10739 and 10740 of 2023 dated 12.12.2023, wherein the claims of the writ petitioners, seeking for regularization of their services, in the time scale of pay, from the date of their respective appointments was rejected, predominantly on the ground that both of them were appointed in the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) in a non- sanctioned post and the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not venture to create a sanctioned post, which is the prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities, for which proposition, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. Before we address the legal sanctity of the reasoning adopted by the Writ Court, we deem it appropriate to refer to certain facts touching upon the claims of these appellants. 3.1. While the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.181 of 2024 was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange and temporarily appointed on 02.12.1985 as 'part-time' Sanitary Worker, the appellant in W.A.(MD)No. 182 of 2024 was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and 'temporarily' appointed on 10.05.1988 as a Sanitary Worker. 3.2. Both these appointments were on a consolidated pay of Rs. 60/- per month. 3.3. When the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 10.10.1988, had ordered for regularization of the services of similarly placed Sanitary Workers on certain conditions, this Court, through orders passed in W.P. (MD) Nos.9726 and 9727 of 2006 dated 24.06.2008, had ordered for regularization of services of those similarly placed Sanitary Workers, which order was confirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) Nos.151 and 225 of 2009. The appellant in W.A.No.181 of 2024 had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.14544 of 2012, seeking for similar orders and through an order dated 02.12.2016, the Writ Court had disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the request, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in W.A.Nos.151 and 225 of 2009. 3.4. However, the third respondent herein had rejected the request, through an order dated 11.04.2017, by holding that thought the appellant was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, she was not entitled for the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.158, dated 10.10.1988, since she was a 'part-time' worker and not a daily wage worker. 3.4. However, the third respondent herein had rejected the request, through an order dated 11.04.2017, by holding that thought the appellant was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, she was not entitled for the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.158, dated 10.10.1988, since she was a 'part-time' worker and not a daily wage worker. It was also recorded that there was no sanctioned post of Sanitary Worker in the DRDA. 3.5. Both the appellants had challenged the rejection order dated 11.04.2017 in W.P.(MD).Nos.15808 and 15809 of 2018, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had placed reliance on a earlier decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No. 193 of 2018, dated 27.03.2018, as well as a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.23980 of 2018, dated 24.09.2018 and had set aside the rejection order dated 11.04.2017 and consequently directed the respondents to pass orders, in terms of the judgment passed in W.A. (MD) No.193 of 2018 dated 27.03.2018. 3.6. In consequence to this order, the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, had placed reliance on the opinion of the Additional Government Pleader dated 29.03.2019, as well as the order of the Government in G.O.No.123, School Education (R.1) Department, dated 17.08.2011, wherein the services of the 'part-time' Sweepers, who are similarly placed as that of the appellants herein, were regularized and accordingly had recommended for regularization of these appellants also. 3.7. Simultaneously, when the respondents had challenged the order passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.15808 and 15809 of 2018, dated 14.02.2019 before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019, the same were dismissed, with a direction to the respondents to pass orders, based on the recommendation of the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, dated 02.05.2019, within a stipulated time. 3.8. In spite of the specific directions of the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment, the Government, through its letter dated 05.04.2021, had once again rejected the claim of the appellants, holding that they are not entitled for regularization of their services, since they were initially appointed in a 'non-sanctioned post' and also since they were 'part-time' employees. 3.9. Since the appellants herein were of the view that the judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019 were violated, they had filed Contempt Petition (MD) Nos.824 and 837 of 2021. 3.10. 3.9. Since the appellants herein were of the view that the judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019 were violated, they had filed Contempt Petition (MD) Nos.824 and 837 of 2021. 3.10. Pending the Contempt Petitions, the 3 rd respondent herein, through the proceedings dated 01.07.2021, allowed both the appellants to work as Sweepers in the Village Panchayat in the special time scale of pay at Rs.4,100/- to Rs.12,500/-, with an entitlement of monthly special pension of Rs.2,000/- and a lumpsum of Rs.50,000/- on retirement. It was further recorded in the said order that such a conversion into special time scale of pay was passed as a special case. 3.11. When the Contempt Petitions came up for hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench had passed final orders on 19.07.2021, recording the rejection of the appellants' plea for regularization and extension of special time scale of pay in their favour and closed the Contempt Petitions by granting liberty to the appellants to challenge the rejection order of the 1 st respondent dated 05.04.2021. 3.12. In accordance with the liberty granted, the appellants had filed W.P.(MD) Nos.10739 and 10740 of 2023, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.12.2023 and which order is assailed in the present Writ Appeals. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in several cases of part-time Sanitary Workers, the Government themselves had passed orders regularizing the services from the date of their original appointment and therefore, the rejection of the case of the appellants amounts to discrimination. According to the learned counsel, the respondents herein had extended the time scale of pay through their orders passed on 01.07.2021, which is only to escape from the contempt proceedings and the same cannot be equated to that of regularization, which has more service and monetary benefits. 5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the appellants herein were originally absorbed in the DRDA in a non-sanctioned post as part-time Sanitary Workers. When the post of a Sanitary Worker has not been specifically sanctioned to the DRDA, the respondents are not in a position to regularize their services. 5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the appellants herein were originally absorbed in the DRDA in a non-sanctioned post as part-time Sanitary Workers. When the post of a Sanitary Worker has not been specifically sanctioned to the DRDA, the respondents are not in a position to regularize their services. He also pointed out that the appointments of the appellants were purely on part- time basis and thus, the earlier Government Orders, facilitating regularization of services of full-time Sanitary Workers on completion of 10 years, cannot be made applicable to these part-time Sanitary Workers. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. This is a pathetic case where the appellants herein have been, for the past about 10 years, made to run from pillar to post, seeking for regularization of their services. Apparently, they have been seeking for such regularization, in view of several decisions being passed by this Court for such regularization of services to similarly placed part-time Sanitary Workers, while the appellants herein were deprived of the same. As a matter of fact, the Government themselves, in G.O.No.123, dated 17.08.2011, had passed regularization orders of part-time Sweepers. 8. The contention of the respondents herein for denying the request of the appellants are two fold. Firstly, the appellants are 'part-time' Sanitary Workers and thus are not entitled to the benefits of Government Orders of regularization. Secondly, the appellants were appointed in a 'non-sanctioned' post and therefore cannot seek for such benefits in the absence of a sanctioned post. 9. We are not in agreement with the said contentions, since these objections have already been considered and rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019, dated 31.07.2020. The relevant portion of the judgment read as follows:- “22. Now, coming to the case on hand, after the impugned orders are passed, the second appellant, vide Lr.No.D7/8530/2019, dated 02.05.2019, sent a communication to the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15, making a positive recommendation to obtain orders regarding the regularization of the respective writ petitioners in light of the legal opinion given by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 23. 23. It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture that though the services of the writ petitioners are temporary/part-time in nature and the consolidated pay is said to have been paid out of the Contingent Funds, the fact remains that their requirement is perennial and continuous in nature and their presence is required almost throughout the day/year for doing sanitary work of cleaning and dusting of the premises. 24. It is also to be noted at this juncture that so far, the writ petitioners have rendered nearly more than 30 years of continuous service without any blemish or stigma and in the light of the recommendation made by the second respondent and also in the light of the observations made in this judgment, the concerned authorities/official respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if any positive order is passed regularising the services of the private respondents/writ petitioners, the actual monetary benefits shall be from the date of Government Orders and further for the purpose of pension and other benefits, it should be notionally calculated from the date of regularization. This judgment is being passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case and as such, it cannot be cited as a precedent for regularization of Part-Time employees or for salary or remuneration of the said employees, which is paid out of Contingent Fund. 25. In the result, both the writ appeals are dismissed, subject to the above observations. The appellants/official respondents are directed to act on the letter of the second appellant, vide Lr.No.D7/8530/2019, dated 02.05.2019 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possibly and not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.” 10. The Coordinate Bench, in the aforesaid judgment, have taken note of the fact that both the appellants have rendered more than 30 years of unblemished services and though their services were purely temporary/part-time and their consolidated pay was being paid out of the contingent funds, their services are perennial and continuous in nature and their presence is required throughout the day for being Sanitary Workers. The Coordinate Bench had further recorded that the judgment was passed in peculiar circumstances, touching upon the appellants and therefore, shall not act as a precedent. The findings in the judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019 has become final and are binding upon the respondents herein. 11. When the appellants were of the view that the subsequent order passed by the third respondent dated 01.07.2021, permitting them to work as Village Panchayat Sweepers in the special time scale of pay, will not amount to regularization of their services, the Coordinate Bench, before whom the Cont.P.(MD) Nos.824 and 837 of 2021 were closed, granted liberty to the appellants to challenge the earlier rejection order dated 05.04.2021. However, the findings in the earlier judgment in W.A. (MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019, continues to hold the case in favour of the appellants. 12. When there was a specific direction to the respondents in W.A. (MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019 to regularize the services of the appellants herein, based on the recommendation of the third respondent dated 02.05.2019, the consequential order of the third respondent dated 01.07.2021, allowing them to continue as Village Panchayat Sweepers in the special time scale of pay, will not entitle them to disobey the directions made in the aforesaid Writ Appeals. In other words, the observations and findings in the judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019 are still binding on the respondents. Thus, the consequential rejection of the appellants' request for regularization cannot be legally sustained. 13. In the light of the above discussions, the only option that was available to the respondents was to comply with the earlier judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench. On the strength of the liberty granted, when the appellants had challenged the original rejection order dated 05.04.2021, the learned Single Judge had not considered the positive directions issued in the Writ Appeals, but had addressed the dis- entitlement of the appellants to seek for regularization of their part-time services and also on the ground of non-availability of sanctioned post. These are not the issues which govern the present set of facts touching upon the claim of the appellants. On the other hand, the facts revolve around the compliance of the original judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019. These are not the issues which govern the present set of facts touching upon the claim of the appellants. On the other hand, the facts revolve around the compliance of the original judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019. Since this aspect was not addressed by the Writ Court in the order impugned in these Writ Appeals, we are of the view that the order cannot be legally sustained. 14. Since the respondents have not disputed that the appellants were originally absorbed into services on 02.12.1985 and 10.05.1988, they would be eligible for regularization of their services with effect from their respective dates of appointment. However, the findings in paragraph 24 of the judgment passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.989 and 990 of 2019 with regard to their entitlement of some of the benefits, requires to be adhered to. 15. In the light of the above observations and findings, the impugned order passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.10739 and 10740 of 2023, dated 12.12.2023, is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to pass appropriate orders, notionally regularizing the services of the appellants herein from the date of their initial appointment, for the purpose of calculation of pension and other benefits. Insofar as the actual monetary benefits are concerned, the appellants shall be entitled for the same from the date of G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 17.08.2011. Such positive orders shall be passed and disbursement of their monetary benefits shall be made, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals stand allowed. No costs.