(1.) The order of rejection dated 21.06.2007 issued by the second respondent in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner for regularising his service on completion of 10 years is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as part time sweeper on 05.09.1984 and was working continuously. Based on the length of services rendered by the writ petitioner and based on the factor that his initial appointment was through the District Employment Exchange. The writ petitioner submitted a representation seeking regularisation of service relying on the Government Orders more specifically G.O. Ms. No. 22 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the writ petitioner was working as part time sweeper and the policy of the regularisation implemented in G.O. Ms. No. 22 is not applicable to the part time employees. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contented that this Court and the Principal Seat of this Court passed number of orders granting the benefit of regularisation more specifically, the colleagues of the present writ petitioner were also benefited. Referring the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner have emphasised that the colleagues of the writ petitioner got an order in their favour and their services were regularized and they are working as permanent employees. The very same reason, provided in the impugned order in this Writ Petition, was furnished to the other persons. When other persons are benefited from and out of the orders of this Court, the same benefit has to be extended to the present writ petitioner also.