O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents to regularize out services with the respondent Corporation w.e.f. the date of the their initial appointment or at least after completing 480 days from the date of initial engagement with all consequential service and other benefits including monetary benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners were appointed as watchmen in the respondent Corporation and subsequently, worked in different posts and at different places and they have worked for more than 480 days. Even then the respondents have not regularized their service. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking direction to regularize their service.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the very same prayer has been sought for by the workmen before this Court in W.P.No.29529 of 2018. This Court, vide its order dated 28.02.2019, dismissed the writ petition. The said order is squarely apply to the present case on hand.

4. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court perused the order in W.P.no.29529 of 2018 dated 28.02.2019. For better understanding, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

''12. Even, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a recent case of State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and another Vs. A.Singamuthu reported in 2017 [4] SCC 113 and the relevant paragraphs

16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are extracted hereunder:-

“16. In State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal [State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 340] , this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that parttime employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said judgment is as under: (SCC pp. 435- 36, para 12) “12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily- wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specifi