Madras High Court
Neduncheliyan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 November, 2021
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
1.Neduncheliyan .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.A(MD)No.1769/2021
2.Samuthravelu .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.A(MD)No.1770/2021
3.S.Rajendran .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.A(MD)No.1771/2021
4.S.Anbalagan .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.A(MD)No.1772/2021
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by Secretary to Government,
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15. ... Respondents in all W.As
Prayer in W.A(MD)No.1769 of 2021:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.04.2021 in W.P(MD)No.8774 of 2021
passed by this Court.
Prayer in W.A(MD)No.1770 of 2021:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.04.2021 in W.P(MD)No.8776 of 2021
passed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
Prayer in W.A(MD)No.1771 of 2021:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.04.2021 in W.P(MD)No.8777 of 2021
passed by this Court.
Prayer in W.A(MD)No.1772 of 2021:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.04.2021 in W.P(MD)No.8779 of 2021
passed by this Court.
For Petitioners
in all W.As : Mr.G.Chandrasekar
For Respondents in all : Mr.P.Subbaraj
W.As Government Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)
Since the issue involved in these Writ Appeals is one and the same,
they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2.The case of the appellants is that they were appointed as Social
Forestry Workers in the Forest Department on various dates viz., 01.08.1980,
01.07.1981, 01.10.1981 and 01.03.1980 respectively, on daily wage basis.
Subsequently, in the year 1994, the Government decided to regularize the
service of the Plot Watchers/Social Forestry Workers throughout the State and
prepared the State Wide Seniority List. In the said list, the appellants' names
were included and they were allotted seniority numbers 946, 1345, 1507 and
779 respectively. In view of more number of persons included in the said list,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
the Government could not accommodate all the persons and hence, issued G.O.
(Ms)No.332, Environment and Forest Department, dated 22.12.1994,
prescribing SSLC as minimum general educational qualification for the post of
Forest Watchers' / Mali, Office Assistant / Office Watchman. Only 421 daily
wage Plot Watchers out of 4000 persons, qualified to be regulrised as Forest
Watcher/Mali. Number of Original Applications were filed before the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.197 of 1995 etc., batch and the
Tribunal granted interim stay of operation of G.O(Ms)No.332, Environment
and Forest Department, dated 22.12.1994, on 24.01.1995. Before granting stay,
171 persons out of 421 Plot Watchers / Social Forestry Workers could join the
post as Forest Watchers. Due to the interim stay granted by the Tribunal, other
persons could not join the post of Forest Watcher. Subsequently, the
Government cancelled G.O(Ms)No.332, Environment and Forest Department,
dated 22.12.1994, and issued another G.O.(Ms)No.64, Environment and Forest
Department, dated 08.03.1999, prescribing qualification to bring the daily wage
Plot Watchers into regular time scale of pay is “ability to read and write”.
Subsequent to the cancellation of G.O(Ms)No.332, Environment and Forest
Department, dated 22.12.1994, a list of persons eligible to be regularised as
Forest Watchers, was prepared. The appellants' names were not included in the
said list and their juniors names were included in the said list and juniors were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
regularised in the year 1994 itself. Whereas the appellants were regularised in
the post of Plot Watchers by the order of the second respondent on 10.03.2003,
20.10.2003, 26.12.2003 and 21.03.2003 respectively and subsequently, they
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018,
31.03.2013, 31.10.2015 and 30.09.2017 respectively. After retirement, all the
appellants have given representations, dated 16.04.2019, 16.04.2019,
18.02.2019 and 01.04.2021 respectively, to regularise their service from
24.01.1995 and grant all monetary benefits.
3.After hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the writ
petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay. Challenging the order of
dismissal of the writ petitions, the appellants have filed the above writ appeals.
4.Heard Mr.G.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions only on the ground of delay
and held that the appellants had not approached the Court at the earliest. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
learned counsel further submitted that all the appellants rendered their
unblemished service for meagre amount till their retirement and the service of
the appellants were regularized only in the year 2009, whereas the service of
their juniors were regularized in the year 1995. Hence, he prays for setting
aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that the appellants failed to take any steps from 1995 till 2018 and
only in the year 2019 they have given representations dated 16.04.2019,
16.04.2019, 18.02.2019 and 01.04.2021 respectively, seeking regularization of
their service with effect from 24.01.1995 and therefore, the learned Single
Judge rightly rejected the claim of the appellants and hence, there is no merit in
these writ appeals and prayed for dismissal of the same.
7.On a perusal of records, it is seen that admittedly, the appellants
were regularised in the post of Plot Watcher by the order of the second
respondent on 10.03.2003, 20.10.2003, 26.12.2003 and 21.03.2003
respectively. Thereafter, the appellants retired from service on attaining the age
of superannuation on 30.06.2018, 31.03.2013, 31.10.2015 and 30.09.2017
respectively. Till their retirement, the appellants did not take any steps for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
regularization of their service with effect from 24.01.1995. After their
retirement, the appellants have given representations to regularise their services
with effect from 24.01.1995 and grant all monetary benefits. Though the
appellants attained the age of Superannuation on 30.06.2018, 31.03.2013,
31.10.2015 and 30.09.2017 respectively, they have neither taken any steps to
approach the Court earlier nor they have made any representation seeking
regularization of their service with effect from 24.01.1995 and the reason for
not approaching the Court either prior to retirement or immediately soon after
the retirement has not been properly explained by the appellants. They gave the
representations only on 16.04.2019, 16.04.2019, 18.02.2019 and 01.04.2021
respectively.
8.Under the above said circumstances, we find that the appellants are
not entitled to seek the relief of regularization of their service with effect from
24.01.1995, after a long lapse of time and the Writ Court has rightly rejected
the claim of the appellants and therefore, we find no sound reason to interfere
with the order passed in the writ petitions and accordingly, the writ appeals fail.
9.In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
(P.S.N.J.,) (P.V.J.,)
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.,
and
P.VELMURUGAN,J.,
Ns
W.A.(MD).Nos.1769 to 1772 of 2021
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
