Madras High Court
G.Rajendran … vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 December, 2021
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD9ICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
and WMP No.4655 of 2021
G.Rajendran … Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Principal Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Head of Forest Force,
No.1, Geenis Road, Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Dharmapuri Forest Division, Harur,
Dharmapuri District.
… Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records of the
second respondent order made in C.No.S2/18396/2015 dated 13.11.2019 and
quash the same, consequently directing the respondents to regularize the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
petitioner service as driver in the regular post from the date of completion of ten
years, ie., 01.07.2006 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ponmozhi
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fazal
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a Plot Watcher on 01.04.1995 by direct
recruitment. He was thereafter posted as Driver at Dharmapuri Forest Range in
the Dharmapuri Forest Division. According to the petitioner, the Government
has issued G.O.Ms.No.95 Environment and Forest (FRII) Department dated
07.08.2009 regularising the services of the Plot Watchers/Social Forestry worker
on completion of 10 years of service on daily wages in the supernumerary post.
2. The petitioner, who was also working for number of years continuously
had made a representation for his absorption in the regular time scale of pay.
However, the representation came to be rejected by the second respondent on
07.10.2008, as against which a Writ Petition in W.P.No.27282 of 2008 has been
filed by the petitioner. This Court, vide order dated 04.04.2013 directed the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner along with others on the basis
of the recommendations of the third respondent. However, the claim of the
petitioner was once again rejected by the Department on 09.05.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
3. The above rejection order was once again put to challenge by the
petitioner in W.P.No.20035 of 2013 and the same was disposed on 10.07.2014
directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the
Government Orders in force. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the District
Forest Officer had sent a proposal to the second respondent to consider the
petitioner's claim for regularisation as driver by letter dated 09.12.2014. While
his representation was kept pending for passing orders, similarly placed persons
like the petitioner herein had been conferred with the benefit of regularisation.
According to the petitioner, number of persons have approached this Court with
similar prayers and those Writ Petitions have been allowed and the orders of this
Court have been implemented by the Department.
4. The Writ Petitioner was once again constrained to file another Writ
Petition in W.P.No.11355 of 2015 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to regularize his service as driver in the 3rd respondent
division on completion of 10 years on par with other similarly placed persons.
This Court vide order dated 05.03.2019 disposed the said Writ Petition directing
the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner once again within a period
of eight weeks. In pursuance of the latest directions of this Court, the claim of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
the petitioner came to be rejected again vide order dated 13.11.2019, which is
the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
issue of regularisation of services of employees like the petitioner is no more res
integra and has been covered by numerous decisions of this Court, confirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel, during the course of her
submission would refer to first of the decisions passed by this Court as early as
on 01.12.2016 in W.P.(MD) No.11106 of 2013 in the case of one Murugan, who
was working as a Driver in the respondent department. A learned single Judge
of this Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by him and directed
regularisation of the service from the date of completion of 10 years with all
benefits. As against the order of the learned single Judge, a Writ Appeal was
filed in W.A.(MD) No.686 of 2017 and the Division Bench dismissed the same
vide order dated 12.07.2017. As against which, a Special Leave Petition was
filed and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
04.09.2018.
6. The learned counsel would also refer to another order passed by this
Court on 04.09.2017 in W.P.Nos.19456 to 19458 of 2013, wherein, after
following the earlier orders passed by this Court, the Writ Petitions were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
allowed, as could be seen from the operative portion of the order reading as
follows:
6. Upon notice, learned Additional Government Pleader entered
appearance and submitted that the petitioners herein are not entitled to
regularisation since they had not completed ten years of service as on
01.01.2006, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.22 of P & A R Department, dated
01.01.2006.
7. At this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the said objection was also raised in respect of the other
driver who was approached this Court earlier in W.P. (MD) No.11106 of
2013 and this Court in the said order dated 01.12.2016, had repulsed and
over ruled such argument stating that the petitioner therein was entitled
to regularisation on completion of ten years of service from the date of
his initial appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
further submit the order passed by the learned Single Judge was
confirmed in W.A.(MD) No.686 of 2017, vide order dated 12.07.2017.
8. Since the petitions herein are squarely covered by the order
passed by this Court as aforesaid, this Court cannot take a different view
in the matter. Moreover, the objection raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents was considered and over ruled and
therefore, the similar objection which is raised by the learned counsel for
the respondents cannot not be entertained as being valid and substantive.
9. In view of the above submissions, this Court has no hesitation
in allowing these writ petitions and the impugned order passed by the first
respondent dated 09.05.2013, insofar as the two petitioners are
concerned, are set aside and all the petitioners are directed to be
regularised from the date of completion of ten years from the date of
initial appointment with all attendant and consequential benefits. The
direction shall be complied with by the first respondent within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, the writ petitions are allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
7. Subsequently, another order was passed on 15.12.2016 in
W.P.No.22740 of 2010 allowing similar claim. As against the said order, Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
Appeal in W.A.No.2796 of 2018 has been filed, which was dismissed by the
Division Bench vide order dated 02.01.2019.
8. The learned counsel would also refer to two Government Orders, viz.,
G.O.Ms.No.03, Environment and Forest Department dated 11.01.2019 and
G.O.Ms.No.48, Environment and Forest Department dated 27.05.2019, wherein
orders of this Court have been implemented and the services of the petitioners
therein were regularised.
9. The learned counsel finally would submit that even recently in a batch
of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.391 of 2020 etc. batch, vide order dated
13.03.2020 a Division Bench of this Court disposed all the Writ Appeals as
follows:
4. Thus, the correctness or otherwise of the directions for
regularization have already been tested by a Division Bench and the order of
the learned Single Judge has been confirmed. In the aforesaid three appeals,
the State has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court,
being S.L.P.(C).No.39233 of 2019, in which notice has been issued on
29.11.2019.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, very fairly
states that the issue raised before the Apex Court is being pressed insofar as
it relates to the date of applicability of the regularization inasmuch as all
such employees are claiming regularization from the date of the initial
appointment and other benefits, whereas they have been given the benefits
from the date of regularization after being regularized.
6. His contention, therefore, is that the issue as to from which date will they
get the benefit of regularization, is the issue engaging the attention of the
Apex Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
7. We have considered the submissions raised and we find no reason to differ
from the view taken by the Division Bench while confirming the judgment of
the learned Single Judge, issuing directions for regularization. But, insofar
as the date from which such regularization will be given effect to being sub-
judice before the Apex Court, we direct that the respondents/petitioners shall
be regularized and so far as the date of regularization is concerned, the
same will be governed by the outcome of the judgment of the Apex Court.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, states that the
respondents/petitioners will be regularized and the regularization orders will
be issued within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this
order. We record this and direct accordingly.
9. The Writ Appeals stand disposed of. No costs. Connected civil
miscellaneous petitions are closed
10. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Division Bench,
recently, G.O.Ms.No.8 Environment and forest (FR2-II) Department dated
22.01.2021 was issued regularising the services of the petitioners in the aforesaid
Writ Petitions. According to the learned counsel, since the services of all the
daily wage drivers have been regularised after repeated orders/directions of this
Court, the present petitioner's case, which is identical to the case of the
petitioners in the above mentioned Writ Petitions/Writ Appeal may be allowed
on similar lines.
11. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fazal, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents has no quarrel with the decisions of this Court as
mentioned above consistently granting the benefit of regularisation of the persons
working in the respondent Department like the petitioner. The learned Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
Government Pleader would graciously admit that the issue raised in this Writ
Petition is also covered by the above decisions.
12. In view of the fact that this Court repeatedly rendered decisions
granting relief to the similarly placed persons like the petitioner herein with
respect to the same department and the same category of employees, the present
Writ Petition is also allowed and the impugned order in C.No.S2/18396/2015
dated 13.11.2019 is set aside.
13. The respondents are directed to to regularise the services of the
petitioner on par with the other similarly placed persons whose services have
been regularised with all consequential and monetary benefits as given to other
persons.
14. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.12.2021
sl
Index:Yes/no
speaking/non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Principal Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Head of Forest Force,
No.1, Geenis Road, Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Dharmapuri Forest Division, Harur,
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
V.PARTHIBAN,J.
Sl
W.P. No.4085 of 2021
and WMP No.4655 of 2021
10.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
