JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the 2nd respondent, quash the order of the 2nd respondent bearing Memo No.TNPCB/Per/P7/24001/2013 dated 31.10.2013 in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from 22.11.1996 being the date of initial engagement in the post of Field Assistant as done in the case of J.Balakumaran and five others vide proceedings No.TNPCB/P7/002970/2011 dated 28.01.2012.)

The orders impugned dated 31.10.2013, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for regularization are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The petitioners state that their names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange office for selection to the Post of Field Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The petitioners were engaged on consolidated pay wages and they joined on 05.02.1997 and 09.10.1996 respectively. The petitioners state that they are working continuously and similarly, many other employees were also kept under daily wages/consolidated pay wages for the purpose of performing regular works.

3. The Respondent-Board was regularizing the services of those temporary employees in a phased manner. Thus, the petitioners also submitted representations repeatedly to consider their case for regularization and permanent absorption. Accordingly, the services of the writ petitioners were regularized in order dated 28.10.1999 with effect from 03.11.1999. The monetary benefits were granted with effect from the date of regularization i.e., on 03.11.1999. The petitioners state that they had been working from 05.02.1997 and 09.10.1996 respectively and therefore, regularization of their services with effect from 03.11.1999 is not justified. In respect of the similarly placed persons, the respondent-Board has given the benefit of regularization with effect from the date of initial appointment. Therefore, the Board cannot discriminate the petitioners for the purpose of grant of retrospective regularization from the date, on which, the writ petitioners were engaged temporarily on consolidated pay.

4. The petitioners have stated that the writ petitioners were appointed as Field Assistants on NMR basis, not exceeding 89 days from the date of joining duty. Subsequently, the benefit of regularization was granted in proceedings dated 28.10.1999. But the services of the writ petitioners were not regularized from the date of their initial appointment.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the other similarly placed persons obtained the orders of the High Court and their services were regularized with retrospective effect. One such order dated 28.01.2012, reveals that the High Court passed on order on 30.03.2011 in W.P.No.27128 of 2009 and based on the said order, retrospective regularization was granted to those employees. Similar such orders were passed even on 17.02.2012, 18.02.2012. Citing all these orders, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the case of the writ petitioners are to be considered for retrospective regularization.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the writ petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees (NMR) from 05.02.1997 to 02.11.1999 and 09.10.1996 to 02.11.1999 respectively. The petitioners were not engaged continuously and they were engaged only on need basis. Further, in supersession of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, the revised order was passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013, wherein, it has been mentioned that proposals for regularizing the services of full time daily wage employees should be sent to the Government for approval even in cases, where, regularization and rules are not involved. Therefore, unless and until, the same is appro