Madras High Court
S.Janakiraman vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 July, 2023
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
1.S.Janakiraman
2.S.Manavalan
3.D.Umapathy
4.Naguram
5.V.Guruchandran
6.S.Nesamani
7.R.Venkatesan ... Petitioners
..Vs..
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet,
Chennai -600 015.
3. The Conservator of Forest,
Chennai Circle, Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in Letter (D)
No.137, Environment and Forest (FR-2) Department dated 14.05.2010,
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to allow the
petitioners to discharge their duties so as to enable them to get their
services regularised on completion of 10 years in the light of the order
dated 23.12.2008 passed in W.P.No.23080 of 2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Dr.T.Seeivasan,
Special Government Pleader
*******
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed praying to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in letter (D)
No.137, Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department dated 14.05.2010,
set aside the same and consequently directing the respondents to allow
the petitioners to discharge their duties so as to enable them to get
their services regularized on completion of ten years in the light of the
order dated 23.12.2008 passed in W.P.No.23080 of 2008.
2. As per the affidavit, the petitioners joined duty in the Forest
Department on different years from 1992 to 1996, while two of the
petitioners worked more than 10 years and all others worked less than
ten years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
3. The service matrix of the petitioners 1 to 7 are as under:-
Sl.No. Name Date of initial appointment
1. S.Janakiraman April 1992
2. S.Manavalan April 1993
3. D.Umapathy April 1996
4. Naguram April 1995
5. V.Gurchandran 1992-93 and from 1995 onwards
6. S.Nesamani April 1996
7. R.Venkatesan April 1993
They are seeking the relief of regularization of their services and
also set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent
wherein, the representation made by the petitioners were rejected.
4. As per the counter, the official respondents have stated that the
petitioners herein were not engaged in any work after 31.03.2004 for
want of casual work and funds and the petitioners were not appointed
as watchman and they never utilized as watchman. They never signed in
the attendance Register as that of regular watchman as claimed by the
petitioners.
5. From the counter, I find that the Forest Protection Squad,
Chennai was formed by shifting the Special Mobile Party, Dharmapuri to
Chennai as per G.O.Ms.No.256, Forest and Fisheries Department dated
19.03.1978 and then shifted to a building in Raj Bhavan Complex. The
seized material in the forest offences were also stored in the same office
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
building. When this old building was damaged badly, the Forest
Protection Squad Office was shifted to DMS Campus and then the
seizures were transported and stored at Southern Forest Research
Institute Building at Kolapakkam. Later, the seizure were transported to
Thirupatthur in November 2001 and stored at the Government
Sandalwood Sale Department for safe custody. As regards, the Dogs
Squad, it was formed on 27.12.1996 as per G.O.Ms.No.110,
Environment and Forests Department dated 30.03.1993 and the sixth
and seventh respondents were engaged for handling the dogs on
muster roll on daily wages. This dogs squad was transferred to Salem
Division on 02.07.2002. As there is no casual work of handling of dogs,
the sixth and seventh respondents have not been engaged on daily
wages.
6. The records reveals that the petitioners were engaged for
specific casual work on daily wage basis, they were stopped, when there
is no work for which they were engaged. There is no provision in the
rule to provide regular employment for the persons engaged on daily
wages.
7. After hearing the rival submissions and after going through the
earlier order passed by this Court, I find that the petitioner along with 6
others filed W.P.No.39708 of 2004 seeking direction to allow the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
petitioners to discharge their duties continuously and to regularize their
services from the date of their respective initial appointment and to
absorb them in regular establishment in Forest Department with
consequential benefits.
8. The above said Writ Petition was disposed of on 09.11.2009
whereby, S.Manavalan and six others have directed the Government to
consider the representation of the petitioners dated 02.05.2004 and
dispose of the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
9. In compliance of the orders of the Court, the first respondent
examined the representation of the petitioner dated 02.05.2004 and
passed speaking orders in Government letter (D) No.137, Environment
and Forests Department dated 14.05.2010. The impugned order was
passed on merits and existing rules and orders.
10. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the
impugned order was passed wherein the official respondent after
applying his mind as to the service records and factual on the ground
come to the conclusion that the petitioners did not work continuously
and there was a regular break in service and therefore they are not
entitled for benefits conferred upon G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 14.01.1997.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
11. The sum and substance of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006, persons who
have rendered ten years of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularized by
appointing them in the time scale of pay of the post in accordance with
the service conditions prescribed for the post concerned.
12. In the instant case, after 31.03.2004, they were not engaged
for any work in the Forest Department and the G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel
and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006 is also not
applicable to this case. The petitioners were informed that the
representation dated 02.05.2004 was not feasible of compliance and
accordingly their request was rejected.
13. The position as stated by the official respondents is that the
petitioners are not engaged after 31.03.2004 and they are not in service
as on 01.01.2006 and hence the G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 is not
applicable. Therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.22 is applicable only to the person
who have worked as on 01.01.2006.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23080 of 2008 dated
23.12.2008 wherein a sweeper who was working on daily wages in a
school for more than 30 years, was regularized.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
15.The case of the petitioners was not working and also the
petitioners were not sponsored through the Employment Exchange and
are not even engaged after 31.03.2004 and therefore, from the factual
matrix of the case in hand is distinguishable from W.P.No.23080 of
2008 and the other judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.No.11815 of 2007 dated 21.07.2011 is not applicable
on a very factual matrix that this is about muster roll persons.
16. After going through the counter affidavit and rival submissions
and in view of the discussions stated above and service matrix of the
petitioners, I find that the second respondent after taking into
consideration the factual service matrix of the case and also the nature
of the employment that they have not employed, required number of
years of service has come to the conclusion that the petitioners did not
work continuously and there was a regular work break in service and
hence the direction issued in G.O.Ms.No.52, Finance (FR-II) Department
dated 14.01.1977 are not applicable to this case.
17.As per G.O.Ms.No.22, P&AR Department dated 28.02.2006,
persons who have rendered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 be
regularized by appointing them in the time scale of pay of the post in
accordance with the service conditions prescribed for the post
concerned. After 31.03.2004, they were not engaged for any work in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
Forest Department and the G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR Department, dated
28.02.2006 is also not applicable to this case and hence, the finding
appears to be just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference
on the factual matrix of this case and hence, I find no merits in this
case.
18. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
18.07.2023
nvi
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet,
Chennai -600 015.
3. The Conservator of Forest,
Chennai Circle, Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
W.P.No.1770 of 2012
18.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
