Madras High Court
M.Selvam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 September, 2022
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
and
WMP No.31522 of 2018
M.Selvam ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St., George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District. .... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
of the 2nd respondent in Proceedings vide Ref. No.LL1/35259/2016,
dated 17.11.2017, to quash the impugned order and consequently
directing the 2nd respondent to include Petitioner's name in the State wide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
Seniority list as per G.O. Ms.No.202, dated 18.12.2013, so as to enable
the petitioner to get his service regularised in a regular time scale of
appointment as Super Namarari Plot Watcher in the light of Division
Bench order of this Court in W.P. No.2390 of 2013, dated 21.03.2018.
For petitioner : SelviRajesh
For respondents : Mr.Um Ravichandran
Spl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
17.11.2017 rejecting the petitioner's request for regularisation based on
G.O. Ms.No.202, dated 18.12.2013.
2. The petitioner has joined the Forest Department on daily wage
basis as a Plot watcher on 01.04.1984 and was posted in the Forest Range
Office, Mettur, Soil Conservation Scheme (MSCS), Dharmapuri District,
Salem Division, Dharmapuri Forest Range. The Forest Division was
handed over to the Rural Development Department on the basis of a
policy decision taken by the Government. The petitioner was deputed to
work in Rural Development Department on and from 15.08.1990.
According to the petitioner, there was no regular employment in Rural
Development Department to be assigned to the petitioner on daily wage
basis. According to the petitioner, he was not paid salary till February
2007 for about one year despite being made to work. According to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
petitioner from March 2007 onwards, he was stopped from being
engaged on daily wage work by citing administrative reasons. According
to the petitioner, he has rendered 23 years of work on daily wage basis.
3. According to the petitioner, the daily wage employees, who have
been deputed from Forest Department to Rural Development Department
and who have been rendered jobless have approached this Court by filing
W.P. No.26529 of 2009 and the said writ petition was filed by an Union.
W.P. No.26529 of 2009 was dismissed on 23.03.2010 against which
W.A.No.887 of 2010 was filed and the same was allowed by a Division
Bench of this Court holding that those who were deputed to Rural
Development department and rendered jobless were entitled for being
included in the Statewide Seniority list so as to enable them to get their
service regularised as Plot Watcher (Supernumerary), even without
insisting for completion of 10 years of service.
4. According to the petitioner, based on the Division Bench
judgment in W.A. No.887 of 2010, number of persons, who were
working on daily wage basis and were rendered jobless in the Forest
Department were regularised in service and their names were also
included in the Statewide Seniority list. According to the petitioner
being similarly placed, he should also get the very same benefit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
5. Earlier, the petitioner also contends that number of persons, like
R.Palanisamy, G.Kumar, L.Narayanasamy, K.Arumugam and A. Perumal
were regularised though they have not completed 10 years of service.
6. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the
petitioner is not eligible for regularisation as per G.O. Ms. No.22,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006
which is applicable only to full time daily wage employees and who had
completed 10 years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 and not to
part time employees.
7. In the impugned order in paragraph No.9, it has been observed
that the order passed in W.A. No.887 of 2010 by the Division Bench of
this Court is only applicable to those names, who are included in the
Statewide Seniority list and who were transferred to Rural Development
Department.
8. In the case on hand, the petitioner's name was not included in
the Statewide Seniority list prior to his transfer to the rural Development
Department. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
that even though the petitioner's name does not find a place in the
Statewide Seniority list, prior to his transfer to the Rural Development
Department, the respondents have erroneously prepared the Statewide
Seniority list despite the fact that the petitioner was similarly placed to
other persons whose names were found in the Statewide Seniority list
prior to their transfer to the Rural Development Department.
9. This Court after giving due consideration to the contents of the
affidavit filed in support of this writ petition as well as the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents and after hearing the submissions made
by the learned counsel on either side is of the considered view that a
positive direction sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot
be granted. However, a direction can be issued to the respondents to
consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the Division Bench
Judgments rendered in W.A. No.887 of 2010 and W.A. No.2390 of 2013,
which the petitioner claims will apply to his case also. No prejudice
would be caused to the respondents, if such a direction is issued to them.
10. Since the petitioner has also not been afforded any personal
hearing in the impugned proceedings, this Court is of the considered
view that the matter will have to be remanded back to the respondent for
fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting him the right of
personal hearing.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated
17.11.2017 rejecting the petitioner's request for regularisation is hereby
quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair
hearing to the petitioner including granting him the right of personal
hearing.
12. The second respondent is directed to pass final orders, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St., George,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
W.P. No.27112 of 2018
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
