IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.7.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.29657 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.3900 of 1996 P.Chockalingam .. Petitioner vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Madras-9 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Madras-5 3. The District Collector Kamarajar District Virudhunagar .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents regularise the services of the applicant retrospectively from 28.4.1978 on par with others and accord the consequential benefits pertaining thereon. For petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R It is stated by the petitioner that he was appointed as a Night Watchman, on 8.10.1972, on daily rated basis and he was Panka Puller, from 26.5.1977 and again as Night Watchman from 3.11.1977. Thereafter, the petitioner was given promotion as an office assistant, on 28.11.1978. Considering the length of service and his age, proposals were forwarded to the Government for regularisation of his service. The Government had issued orders regularising the service of the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.902, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revenue Department, dated 14.6.1989, giving regularisation, prospectively, from the date of the order, i.e., 14.6.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner had made several representations to the authorities concerned to give retrospective regularisation of his service, with effect from the date of his initial appointment. 2. The petitioner has further stated that even though the services of similarly placed persons, like the petitioner, have been regularised from the date of their initial appointment, the representations made by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred an original application in O.A.No.3900 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.29657 of 2006. 3. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that though the prayer is for a larger relief, it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.3.1995, for regularisation of the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as was done in respect of similarly placed persons, is directed to be disposed of by the first respondent, within a specified period . 4. The learned Government Advocate has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.3.1995, on merits and in accordance with law, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that similarly placed persons, like the petitioner, have been regularised from the date of their initial appointment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been disposed of till date. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 23.3.1995, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. lan Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To: 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Madras-9 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Madras-5 3. The District Collector Kamarajar District Virudhunagar bvr (co) dv/30.7. W.P.No.29657 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.3900 of 1996 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/