Madras High Court

M.Sundaram vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 24 November, 2021

                                                                              W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 24.11.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                                W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

                     1.M.Sundaram
                     2.S.Arumugam
                     3.P.Subbaiah
                     4.M.Ayyapan
                     5.T.Perumal
                     6.M.Subramanian
                     7.S.Mani
                     8.A.Muthappa
                     9.R.Palavesam
                     10.P.Premasundari Bai
                     11.R.Ganesan                                                 ..Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     1.The State of Tamilnadu
                     Rep.by the Principal Secretary to Govt.,
                     Environment and Forest Department,
                     Secretariat, Chennai -9.

                     2.Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
                     Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet,
                     Chennai-15

                     3.The Conservator of Forests,
                     Paiayankottai, Tirunelveli Circle,
                     Tirunelveli – 7                                    ..Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
                     for writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to pay the special
                     time scale with effect from 07/08/2009 on par with other temporary
                     employees or any other appropriate relief.

                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  W.P.No. 20026 of 2010



                                  For Petitioner          : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
                                  For Respondents         : Mr.T.Arunkumar, AGP


                                                         ORDER

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of mandamus,

seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to pay the special time scale

with effect from 07/08/2009 on par with other temporary employees

or any other appropriate relief.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Social

Forestry Worker through employment exchange on consolidated pay

of Rs.250/- per month w.e.f 15.06.1983, 04.12.1984 and 10.04.1985.

Based on the date of joining, the seniority list was prepared by the

respondent. Subsequently, the 1st respondent had passed an order

om G.O.Ms. No. 592 /1989, dated 16.08.1989 stating that the

aforesaid social forestry worker post was dismantled from the Forest

department and their services will be utilised by the Panchayat unions

. Further it is stated by the petitioner that due to the said order, 500

plot watchers and 600 village social forestry workers would be

dismantled in 1989-90 and their services to be utilised by panchayat

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

unions. Based on the said Government order, the respondent had

relieved the petitioner from the social forestry division, Tirunelvlei

and alloted to rural development department instead of Panchayat

unions w.e.f 08.09.1989.

3. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, the association has filed

an original application in O.A.No. 4557 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal and same was dismissed. Against which, the

association had preferred a writ petition in W.P.No. 19929 of 2003

before this Court and this Court by order dated 16.08.2007 modified

the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal and directed to

prepare a statewide seniority list and appoint them on temporary

basis. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the Government had

passed an order in G.O.Ms.No. 53, dated. 12.06.2008 and directed

the Principal Chief Conservator of forests to appoint 85 persons who

are members of association. The petitioner was appointed as plot

watcher on temporary basis. Subsequently, vide G.O.Ms. No. 95,

Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department, dated 07.08.2009, the

Government had granted special time scale of pay of Rs. (2500-5000)

and grade pay of Rs.500/- for all the temporary employees who have

completed 10 years of service in the Panchayat union or Forest

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

Department. But the petitioner was not granted the said benefit of

special time scale of pay till date despite the directions issued by the

3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders.

Hence the present writ petition for mandamus.

4. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the

similarly placed persons have filed a writ petition before this Court

challenging the G.O. Ms. No. 95, Environment and Forests (FR-2)

Department, dated 07.08.2009 for fixing the eligibility criteria for a

period of 10 years of service. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court in W.A.No. 887/2010 in W.P. No 9750/2010 by order dated

29.04.2011 had passed an order, directing the respondents to

implement the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 95, Environment and

Forests (FR-2) Department, dated 07.08.2009 on the basis of the

state wide seniority list without insisting ten years of continuous

service. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said

judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench is final, therefore, the

reasons stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners had not

completed the service for considering supernumerary post as

sanctioned in G.O. 95, Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department,

dated 07.08.2009 is wrong and the petitioners are entitled for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

relief as prayed for in the writ petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the

Government Order in G.O.No.95, Environment and Forests (FR-2)

Department, dated 07.08.2009 clearly states that the temporary

employees who worked under the Panchayat, Forest or any other

departments has to satisfy the condition that they have to complete

ten years of service in their department. Whereas, the petitioners

had not completed 10 years of service as they were placed in the

department only in the year 2008, therefore their names were not

included in the list. Hence, seeks for the dismissal of the writ

petition.

6. Heard the rival submissions made by the both learned

counsels appearing for the parties concerned and perused the

materials available on record.

7. The Entire issue revolving in the writ petition is whether the

Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 95, Environment and Forests (FR-2)

Department, dated 07.08.2009 imposing ten years of service is a bar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

for the petitioners to consider them to grant regular time scale of pay

sanctioning supernumerary post as per the aforesaid Government

Order.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed

in W.A.No. 887 of 2010 in W.P.No.9705 of 2010 wherein the writ

petitioners has challenged the aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 95, Environment

and Forests (FR-2) Department, dated 07.08.2009 imposing 10 years

of service. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered

the said issue and held that the said condition stipulated in the said

Government Order is unsustainable and further directed the

respondent to consider the case of the petitioners without insisting

upon ten years of service rendered in the department. The relevant

portion of the judgment is extracted below;

“22. The Government found that altogether there were 3058 candidates left in the state wide seniority list for appointment. In fact, there were litigations involving the Department and Plot Watchers who were appointed through employment exchange. The Government with a view to resolve the dispute, issue orders in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

G.O.Ms.No. 95, dated 7 August 2009. however, while agreeing to appoint the erstwhile plot watchers, a new condition was incorporated that they should have completed ten years of continuous service. The said condition was not there in the earlier Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 64 and 65 dated 6 March 1999 and 8 March 1999 respectively.

23. The Department has no case that the order in G.O.Ms.No. 95 was issued in supercession of the earlier order in G.O.Ms.Nos.64 and 65. Even according to the Department, G.O.Ms.No.64 , 65 and 95 are operating in the filed and they should be harmoniously construed. The challenge to the condition regarding ten years of continuous service should be considered in the light of G.O.Ms. No.64 and 65 and the service regulations. In view of Rule2-B and the proviso regarding relaxation of educational qualification, the erstwhile plot watchers like the members of the appellant association and the petitioner in W.P.No.

9750 /2010 would automatically get a right to claim appointment. The Government cannot prescribe a further condition of ten years of continuous service which would go against the service regulations as well as the earlier order in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 20026 of 2010

G.O.Ms.Nos. 64 and 65.”

9. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court cannot be disputed by the respondent, therefore considering

the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions rendered

by the Hon'ble Division Bench, this writ petition is disposed of with

the following directions;

i. The petitioners are directed to make application before the first

respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

ii. On receipt of such applications, the respondents are directed

consider the same and pass orders taking note of the directions

issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.

887 of 2010 in W.P.No. 9750 of 2010, dated 29.04.2011 as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve

(12) weeks from the date of receipt of such applications.