ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order issued by the first respondent, vide in G.O.Ms.No.439, Home Transport IV Department, dated 06.05.2010, insofar as regularising the services of the petitioner in the post of Sweeper only with effect from 06.05.2010, instead of regularising her services with effect from the date of initial appointment dated 17.08.1983.

2. The admitted facts that are relevant for disposal of the Writ

Petition are that, the petitioner was working as part time Sweeper through Employment Exchange from 17.08.1983 appointed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chennai zone, on consolidated pay basis and she has been requesting for regularising her services in the post of sweeper. It is also an admitted fact that there is an existing sanctioned post of sweeper available in the Office of the Transport Commissioner, now re-designated as Joint Commissioner of Transport, the third respondent herein. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected on number of occassions, resulting in, the petitioner filing a writ petition of W.P.No.1836 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 26.10.2009, directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner duly taking into consideration the Government Orders issued in

G.O.Ms.Nos.377 & 398 respectively.

3. From the perusal of the said order passed by this Court, it is evident that the case of the petitioner was directed to be considered. Accordingly, the impugned Government Order was passed regularising the services of the petitioner only from the date 06.05.2010 onwards. Aggrieved by the said order prospectively regularising the services, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as part time employee through the Employment Exchange in accordance with law, in an existing sanctioned post of sweeper available in the Office of the third respondent. The first respondent regularised the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment. After regularisation of the services of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted such proposals which were not rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner was over-aged. However, on repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner by duly perusing the petition in W.P.No.1836 of 2008 and passed the impugned order regularizing her services prospectively instead of regularizing the same from the date of initial appointment.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the various orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.49613 of 2006 and 14364 of 2007, dated 09.11.2011, in which, this Court referred to W.P.No.39780 of 2006, dated 24.03.2009 and W.A.No.1329 of 2007, dated 29.03.2007 and W.P.No.30564 of 2006, dated 14.03.2009.

6. This Court have gone through the above orders relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner. On a perusal of the said orders, it discloses that under similar circumstances when the cases of the petitioners' services therein considered for regularising with the prospective effect and requesting certain rules, this Court has declared that the petitioner therein is entitled to the regularising of the service from the date of initial appointment instead of from the date of issuance of such

Government Orders issued for regularizing such rules.

7. In W.P.No.39780 of 2006, dated 24.03.2009, this Court held as under :

"4.The grievance of the petitioner is that his service was regularised by relaxing the rules from the date of issuance of the Government Order as stated supra and not from the date of initial appointment.

5.The petitioner, who was appointment without qualification and not in accordance with the rules, was granted relaxation of the rules by the Government. Similar issue as to whether the regularisation can be re