the respondent department acted upon as per the direction issued by this Court, directing the respondent department to consider the request of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons, in the year 2009, certainly the petitioner's case would have been considered as per the erstwhile Government Order or otherwise. It is not explained before this Court by the respondents that why they sat over the order passed by this Court, by not complying the same for six years. Merely because the respondent department kept the file for six years without taking any decision in spite of the orders passed by this Court with a time bound direction and in the meanwhile, if any adverse Government Order has come into force, that too, in the year 2013, i.e., after 5 years of passing the order by this Court, the said embargo cannot be put against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that G.O(Ms)No.74, dated 27.06.2013, cannot be put against the petitioner, as her case was directed to be considered by an order of this Court in the year 2008 itself as the petitioner had completed ten years, admittedly from the date, where her first service was recorded in the Service Register as early as 1999 itself. Therefore, at any rate, she would be entitled to get regularisation from 2009 onwards. If such a consideration has been shown shown in the year 2009 itself, this kind of unpleasatness could have been avoided and the petitioner, though had been engaged continuously by the very same respondent department at least till 31.03.2014, would have been regularised. All these factors would show that the petitioner has made out the case that she has been continuously working at least 15 years from 1999-2014 at the respondent department either as NMR or as a daily wages or on contract basis. At any rate, the service was continuous in nature and spread over 15 years. These factors cannot be easily brushed aside by the respondent department by merely passing a cryptic order, quoting a Government Order, which came into being after several years and by merely keeping the file pending without passing any orders, despite the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled to claim reqularization, and accordingly this Writ Petition is to be allowed.
