ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.8019 of 2013 joined as Plot Watcher in the Forest Department on daily wage basis on 21.08.1975. While he was working in the Forest Department, he was deputed to work as Plot Watcher in the Rural Development Department from 15.08.1990. Thereafter, when he was called back to the parent department on 03.12.1994, he was not allowed to work for want of vacancy. When he rejoined duty on 31.12.1999 in the same department, the respondents also came forward to regularise his service from 31.12.1999 in the time scale of pay in the regular post as Forest Watcher. Thereafter, his probation was declared with effect from 31.12.1999 and later on, he was also promoted to the post of Forest Guard during March, 2005. After his retirement on 30.11.2010, he was given pension only by counting his services from 31.12.1999 to 30.11.2010 and his past services in the daily wage category from 21.08.1975 to 03.12.1994 was not taken into account for the purpose of calculation of pension. Therefore, he made a representation dated 05.11.2011 to the respondents to count half of the service rendered by him on daily wage basis from 21.08.1975 till 03.12.1994 by condoning the break in period from 04.12.1994 till 30.12.1999 along with regular service from 31.12.1999 till his retirement on 30.11.2010. 3. The petitioner's case in W.P.No.6985 of 2013 is also similar to that of above said facts. In this case, the petitioner worked on daily wage basis from 01.07.1980 till 07.05.1992 and his break in service period was from 18.03.1992 till 07.05.1992. He was sanctioned pension from 08.05.1992 till his retirement on 30.11.2008. 4. In the above said fact and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to note G.O.Ms.No.41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 09.02.2010, wherein it is stated that wherever there was break in service, before the absorption of the employees in regular service before First April 2003, the same shall be specifically condoned by the orders of the Head of Departments, in which the employees were regularly absorbed and such period of break, shall not count for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Therefore, by taking note the above said GO, if this Court looks at the case of the petitioners in both writ petitions, it is no doubt true that they are absorbed well before April, 2003, i.e. the petitioner in W.P.No.8019 of 2013 on 31.12.1999 and the petitioner in W.P.No.6985 of 2013 on 08.05.1992. Hence, in my considered opinion, I find there is no reason for the respondent not to condone the said break in period. 5. With regard to counting half of service rendered by the petitioners, it is relevant to refer to Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which is extracted hereunder: "(4) Half of the service rendered under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 in respect of Government employees absorbed in regular service before 1st April 2003 shall be counted fro retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time employment; (ii) Service rendered shall be on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages paid on monthly basis and subsequently absorbed in regular service under the State Government; (iii) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be followed by absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003 without a break; Provided that this sub-rule is applicable to all employees who rendered service under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 and absorbed in regular service before 1st April 2003. Provided further that wherever there was break in service before their absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003, the same shall be specifically condoned by the orders of the Head of Department, in which the employees were regularly absorbed and such period of break, shall not count for the purpose of pensionary benefits." From the above said Rule, it is clear that all the three conditions as outlined above are fulfilled in the case of the petitioners. 6. Besides, in a similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.31312 of 2012, dated 01.03.2013, by taking note of the Rule 11-4, directed the respondent Forest Department to consider the case of the petitioner therein by condoning the break in service period. 7. 6. Besides, in a similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.31312 of 2012, dated 01.03.2013, by taking note of the Rule 11-4, directed the respondent Forest Department to consider the case of the petitioner therein by condoning the break in service period. 7. Therefore, for the above said reasons, the first respondent / the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in both writ petitions for condoning the break in service period and thereafter, to confer the benefit of Rule 11(4) of the Rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent / the Accountant General, Chennai, after receiving the proceedings of the first respondent, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of one month thereafter. In the above terms, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No Costs.