Madras High Court
R.Ramalekshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2021
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A. No.2731 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No.22508 of 2018
R.Ramalekshmi ... Appellant
vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. By the Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
3. The Chief Principal Conservator of Forests,
(Afforestation) and Chief Project Director,
of Tamil Nadu Bio-Diversity Conservation and
Greening Project, JFM Centre,
Velachery Main Road, Chennai – 600 032.
4. The Chief Conservator of Forests,
Southern Region, Race Course Road,
Madurai.
5. The Forest Extension Officer,
Forestry Extension Division,
Kanyakumari at Aralvoimozhi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of 8
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
6. The Conservator of Forests,
Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli. ...Respondents
Prayer :-
Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 17.07.2018, passed in W.P.No.15366 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
****
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The challenge in this Appeal is to an order passed by the Writ
Court, in W.P.No.15366 of 2013, dated 17.07.2018.
2. The appellant, who was appointed as Casual Labour, in Tamil
Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation (in short, TAFCORN Ltd.), in the year
1997 was later posted as Section writer-cum-Typist in the year 2001 in
Tirunelveli Division and was directed to discharge duty as Computer
Operator by virtue of her qualification in Typewriting and Computer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
Application. She has been discharging duties as Computer Operator in
Tirunelveli Forest Division, Courttallam Range for over 11 years and from
May, 2012, she has been working as Data Entry Operator in the Forestry
Extension Division.
3. By virtue of the order passed by the Government, vide G.O.Ms.
No.276 of Environment and Forests (Fr.6) Department, dated 13.12.2012,
she was appointed as Contractual staff through outsourcing. Later, another
Government Order, was issued vide G.O.(Ms.) No.22 of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, prescribing for
regularization of Casual Labourers after they completed 10 years of daily
wage employment. The appellant, who had completed more than 15 years
of service as daily wage employee in Forest Corporation and Forest
Department sought for regularisation of service by virtue of G.O.Ms.22,
dated 28.02.2006.
4. Further, in the proceedings, bearing Na.Ka.No.2429/2011/PA2,
dated 05.05.2011, the District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli Division
recommended for regularization of the appellant's service. In the said
recommendation, it has been categorically pointed out that the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
had been working in TAFCORN between 1997 to 2001 and from 2001 till
date, she is working as Computer Operator in the Forest Range Office,
Courtallam Range. As she had completed more than 10 years of casual
service, a proposal was sent along with relevant files for regularizing her
service. It was specifically recommended to regularize the service of the
appellant in the post of Computer Operator as per the rules. The District
Forest Officer had also given a certificate, dated 02.05.2012, stating that
the appellant worked as Typist in the office of Deputy Conservator of
Forest/Manager, Sandal wood Products Factory, TAFCORN from August,
1997 to April, 2001 and she is working as Computer Operator in the Forest
Range Office, Courtallam Range from September, 2001 to till date. Despite
the said recommendation, her service was not regularized. Hence, the
appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.15366 of 2013, seeking a mandamus
to consider her service and regularize the same based on G.O.Ms.No.22 of
P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006. The Writ Court erroneously held
that, when the Casual Employees are appointed in accordance with the
recruitment rules, their service cannot be regularized nor they can be
brought under regular establishment, and refused to issue mandamus. The
Writ Court had further held that the appointment of the appellant was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
through back door entry, and therefore, she cannot be regularized merely on
the ground of length of service rendered by her. The said findings of the
Writ Court are not correct in view of the facts narrated. Even the District
Forest Officer, in whose Department, the appellant had been employed has
specifically stated that she has been working from 1997 without any break
in service and she was appointed as Contractual Staff through proceedings,
dated 13.12.2012. When her appointment is based on a Government Order,
the same cannot be said to be back door entry. But the Writ Court
dismissed the Writ Petition on misconceived facts.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on
the judgements passed by this Court by quoting various Single Bench and
Division Bench decisions. In one of the decisions rendered by the Division
Bench in W.A.No.686 of 2017, dated 12.07.2017, in re Government of
Tamil Nadu, and three others Vs. S.Murugan, it was held that the
appellant was in service right from 1997, without any break and he was
directed to be regularized by the Division Bench of this Court, which was
also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S.L.P.No. 29276 of 2018
on 04.09.2018. Similarly, in the batch of Writ Appeals filed by the drivers,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
their services were also directed to be regularized by the Forest Department.
6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits
that the Government has also not taken into dispute the applicability of the
above said decisions to the facts of the present case.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
learned Government Advocate for respondents and perused the materials
placed on record.
8. In the light of the above narrated facts, we are of the view that
when the continuity of employment without any break of the appellant is
not disputed, we cannot also take a different view in this matter, except,
following the similar view taken by this Court in the above referred cases.
In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and
the Writ Appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the
service of the appellant as Computer Operator from the date of her initial
appointment with all consequential attendant benefits. The said order has
to be complied with by the respondents 1 and 2 or any other Competent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
Authority, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition with direction is also closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
31.08.2021
sd
Index : Yes/No
To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
3. The Chief Principal Conservator of Forests,
(Afforestation) and Chief Project Director,
of Tamil Nadu Bio-Diversity Conservation and
Greening Project, JFM Centre,
Velachery Main Road, Chennai – 600 032.
4. The Chief Conservator of Forests,
Southern Region, Race Course Road,
Madurai.
5. The Forest Extension Officer,
Forestry Extension Division,
Kanyakumari at Aralvoimozhi.
6. The Conservator of Forests,
Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2731 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
sd
W.A. No.2731 of 2018
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
