The central legal point established in the judgment is the regularization of the petitioners with retrospective effect and the sanctioning of their annual increments as per Government Order G.O.Ms.No.374, Revenue (L.R.3(2)) Department, dated 16. 2006 and the proceedings of the Assistant Director in Na.Ka.A1/5558/2000, dated 29. 2006.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. It is stated by the petitioner that he had joined the service of the Survey Department as a Surveyor, on a consolidated pay in the year 1983. Thereafter, he has been given the time scale of pay. The petitioner was appointed in Pudukottai District Survey Unit, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1043, dated 19. 82, which had provided for the recruitment of staff, including the Surveyors on consolidated pay, towards the implementation of the `Updating Registry Scheme. The petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange and his name was forwarded to the Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records) for being considered for the post of Surveyor. In the month of November 1982, the petitioner was selected by a Three Member Committee consisting of the District Revenue Officer, the District Backward Class Welfare Officer and the Assistant Director of Survey. Therefore, the petitioner was sent for training for a period of three months from 1. 83 to 83. Following the training, a panel of approved candidates was prepared for the post of Surveyors and Draftsmen on consolidated pay by the Assistant Director of survey, Pudukkottai, on the basis of merit in accordance with the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The said approved list and the ranking given thereon was not challenged by any person. Between 14. 83 and 14. 83 appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates and they had joined duty between 14. 83 and 20.83. G.O.Ms.No.910 was issued in the year 1983 by the Commercial Tax and Religious Endowments Department, providing for absorption of Surveyors cum Draftsmen on consolidated pay in the existing vacancies and in the vacancies that was open to arise in the future carrying time scale of pay, provided they were fully qualified to hold the posts as per the rules. Thereafter, on 19. 84, the Director of Survey and Settlements issued Rc.4K 40702/84 (Additional Director) directing the appointing authority to appoint the Surveyor cum Draftsmen in consolidated pay to vacancies available in posts carrying time scale of pay, based on seniority of the Surveyors/Draftsmen in the consolidate pay posts. The provisional seniority list of Surveyors/Draftsmen on consolidated pay in Pudukkottai District, based on the ranking in the approved panel, was published on 7. 85 and the objections were invited. Thereafter, the final seniority list was published on 86.

3. Subsequently, in the year 1988, 29 surveyors/draftsmen were absorbed against the existing vacancies in the posts carrying the time scale of pay and their services were also regularised. Nine of the persons had the benefit of further promotions. In the year 1989, some more Surveyors/Draftsmen were appointed to posts carrying the time scale of pay. Whileso, in the year 1990 some sof the Surveyors/Draftsmen had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal for preparation of the seniority list, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.806, dated 17. 88 and G.O.Ms.No.523, dated 6. 82, which provided for fixation of seniority based on age, under certain circumstances. After several rounds of litigation before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and before the Supreme Court of India, the Assistant Director of Survey, Pudukkottai, issued an order bearing No.Na.Ka.No.A1/7296/95, dated 18. 95, containing the revised seniority list of Surveyors/Draftsmen in Pudukkottai, wherein age was the sole criterion for determination of seniority. The list had been prepared without giving notice to the affected parties in the manner directed by the Tribunal in R.A.Nos.143 and 144 of 1992. It was, however, provided that the persons who were aggrieved by the seniority list could raise their objections within 30 days. Even though objections were filed the provisional seniority list, dated 18. 95, was confirmed without any change by the order of th