The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs G.Rajendran
2022 Latest Caselaw 11624 Mad

                                                             1

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 30.06.2022

                                                          CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                 and
                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                                                  W.A.No.1588 of 2022
                                               and C.M.P. No.10550 of 2022


                     1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       rep. By its Principal Secretary,
                       Environment and Forest Department,
                       Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

                     2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
                       Head of Forest Force,
                       No.1, Geenis Road, Panagal Building,
                       Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

                     3.The District Forest Officer,
                       Dharmapuri Forest Division,
                       Harur, Dharmapuri District.                            ..   Appellants

                                                            Vs.


                     G.Rajendran                                              ..   Respondent


                                  Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

                     order dated 10.12.2021 made in W.P. No.4085 of 2021.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                            2

                                  For Appellants            ..    Mr.R.Neelakandan,
                                                                  Addl. Advocate General
                                                                  assisted by
                                                                  Ms.S.Mythreye Chandru,
                                                                  Spl. Govt. Pleader

                                  For Respondent            ..    Mr.S.Ponmozhi


                                                       JUDGMENT

(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated

10.12.2021 recorded on W.P.No.4085 of 2021. This appeal is by the

respondents / State Authorities.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that,

the writ petitioner had not put in ten years of service as on

01.01.2006 and therefore no direction could have been issued to

treat him at par with other persons whom the writ petitioner

referred to. It is submitted that, though the writ petitioner was

engaged from 01.04.1995, on 01.01.2006 he had not completed ten

years of service, if the period for which he was engaged by the

competent authority is kept in view. It is submitted that, for this

reason the direction issued by learned Single Judge is unsustainable

and this appeal be entertained.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent/

writ petitioner has submitted that, the writ petitioner was initially

engaged from 01.04.1995 and it was not for the writ petitioner to

decide when the grassroot officer will engage him or not and

according to him, the writ petitioner had not taken any break from

the employment. It is submitted that, the discretion exercised by

learned Single Judge is just and proper and therefore this appeal be

dismissed.

4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective

parties and having considered the material on record, this Court

finds that, it is not in dispute that, the writ petitioner was engaged

on temporary basis from 01.04.1995. The cut-off date for the

purpose of regularisation of services is indicated to be 01.01.2006.

The writ petitioner has already put in more than ten years of service

by that time. A poor daily wager can not be expected to have record

with him, when he was engaged, the period for which he was not

engaged and what is his explanation. The discretion left with the

grassroot officers can not be permitted to be taken advantage of like

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

this by the State Authorities after about a decade. In the peculiar

facts of the case, when learned Single Judge has exercised

discretion in favour of the writ petitioner, we do not consider it to be

an error, which may call for any interference in this intra-court

appeal. This appeal is therefore needs to be dismissed.

5. For the above reason, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.

                                                                  (P.U.J.)       (J.S.N.P.J.)
                                                                         30.06.2022
                     Index:No
                     mmi/1




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                                           PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
                                                         and
                                  J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

                                                          mmi




                                             W.A.No.1588 of 2022




                                                     30.06.2022




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis