Madras High Court
G.Sekar vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 September, 2014
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
W.P.No.26115 of 2014
G.Sekar .. Petitioner
vs.
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as regular time scale Forest Watcher taking into account of his seniority and qualification, on par with his juniors in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.15561 of 2006 dated 10.03.2008, W.A.No.690 of 2008 dated 13.10.2009, W.P.No.23374 of 2008 dated 30.10.2009, W.A.No.607 of 2010 dated 29.03.2010 and proceedings of the second respondent dated 7.1.2011 and confer all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani
For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan
Government Advocate
ORDER
Mr.N.Inbanathan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages in the Forest Department during 1981 and subsequently, his service was regularised, but not on par with his juniors. However, the juniors of the petitioners, who are able to read and write and acquired SSLC qualification were promoted earlier than petitioner as per the qualification fixed by G.O.Ms.No.332, Environment and Forest Department, dated 22.12.1994. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.64, Environment and Forest Department, dated 08.03.1999 was issued restoring the qualification of ability to read and write, instead of SSLC. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given appointment as forest watcher by following the state-wide seniority list and his juniors were regularised even prior to that of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue is already covered by the decision in the Writ Petition filed by similarly placed persons in W.P.No.15561 of 2006 dated 10.03.2008, which was confirmed in W.A.No.690 of 2008 dated 13.10.2009.
4. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner's juniors were already regularised, even before the petitioner could get regularised, as per the decision referred to above, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner on par with his juniors as Forest Watcher, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to only regularisation from the date on which, his juniors were regularised and he is not entitled to any monetary benefits from that date.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
24.09.2014 Index: Yes / no Internet: yes / no asvm R.S.RAMANATHAN, J (asvm) To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
W.P.No.26115 of 201424.09.2014