Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs T.Bakthavatchalam on 13 March, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.648 of 2025
------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.648 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.5286 of 2025
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Head of Department)
Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
3.The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Administration)
Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
4.The Conservator of Forests,
Dharmapuri Circle,
Dharmapuri. ... Appellants
Vs.
T.Bakthavatchalam ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
----------------------
Page No.: 1 of 6
W.A.No.648 of 2025
------------------------
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 21.02.2024 made in W.P.No.12292 of 2021 and allow
this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Selvaraj,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The respondent who was working as Deputy Conservator of Forests had
served in the said post for nearly 20 years and he was promoted to the higher
post as Assistant Conservator of Forests some time in 2009. While he was
promoted he had rendered 20 years of service in the lower post.
2. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 11.03.1987 to
redress the grievance of the employees who have been stagnated at the lower
posts for a long period, which results in their salary in promoted post being the
same as they were drawing in the lower post, by virtue of there being conferred
Selection Grade / Special Grade. In order to address such contingency, the
Government by the said Government Order dated 11.03.1987 permitted the
service rendered in the lower post to be treated as service rendered in the higher
post, in order to confer the post of Selection Grade in the higher post.
---------------------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
------------------------
Originally the said benefit was restricted to first promotion only. Subsequently
upon clarification issued by the Government, it was extended to further
promotions with a rider that it shall be one time measure in the service of the
individual.
3. Therefore, upon having been promoted as Assistant Conservator of
Forests after putting in 20 years of service as Deputy Conservator of Forests,
the respondent was granted Selection Grade in the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forests. This grant was recalled by the order impugned in the
Writ Petition relying upon the clarification issued by the Government on
09.08.2011. The writ Court rightly found that a clarification issued
subsequently cannot be a ground to recall the grant which has already been
made in favour of the petitioner. The writ Court also concluded that the
clarification dated 09.08.2011 being a letter cannot retrospectively overwrite
the Government Order issued earlier. On the above conclusion, the writ Court
allowed the Writ Petition quashing the order recalling re-fixation as well as
recovery. Hence, this appeal.
4. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend
that the clarification was issued in the light of the revised pay scale that were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
----------------------
------------------------
implemented from 01.01.2006 and therefore it cannot apply to all persons who
have been promoted after the said date. We are unable to accept the contention
of the learned Additional Government Pleader. The benefits conferred by
G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 11.03.1987 were in fact conferred on the respondent. It
is also admitted that he had served in one post for nearly 20 years. What was
sought to be addressed by G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 11.03.1987 is this stagnation.
Therefore, the benefit that was conferred on the ground that the person had
been stagnant in one post for more than 20 years cannot be withdrawn on the
basis of the clarificatory letter issued by the Government, that too, after the
benefits were conferred. The Clarificatory letter cannot be applied
retrospectively to take away the benefits.
5. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the writ
Court. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (G.A.M.,J.)
13.03.2025
dsa
Index : No
---------------------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
------------------------
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Head of Department)
Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
3.The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Administration)
Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
4.The Conservator of Forests,
Dharmapuri Circle,
Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
----------------------
------------------------
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
dsa
13.03.2025
---------------------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
