Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 938 (MAD)

D. Thilagar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-02-13

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2 nd respondent in Ref.No.LL1/28907/2022 dated 27.03.2023 and quash the same with consequential direction to the respondents to give retrospective appointment in the post of Forest Watcher on par with the petitioner's juniors on 24.01.1995 by correcting his date of joining as 28.02.1986 instead of 01.12.1986 and confer all consequential benefits within the time frame. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it had been contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis on 28.02.1986. It had been stated that subsequently the Government had issued a Government Order to regularise the service of the Plot Watchers and Social Forestry Workers who have been appointed on daily wage basis. Some of the Plot Watchers were transferred to the Rural Development Department. The petitioner was also similarly transferred and he worked in the Rural Development Department for nearly 42 months and was thereafter transferred to the Panchayat Union Office. 3. In the year 1994, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.332 Environment and Forest (FR.VI) dated 22.12.1994 stipulating that one of the qualification for the post of Plot Watcher should be an educational qualification in SSLC. Accordingly, it had been stated that 425 persons who had passed SSLC had been appointed as Forest Watchers but the seniority was not considered at that particular time. The petitioner had been transferred to the Rural Development Department and was not appointed as Forest Watcher. The Plot Watchers Association had filed O.A.No.197 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and a direction was granted to restore the qualification namely ability to read and write instead of a pass in SSLC. A direction was also given to prepare State wise seniority list. 4. Again, it is the contention of the petitioner that those who had been transferred to the Rural Development Department like the petitioner were not included in the seniority list. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent had issued G.O.Ms.No.65 including the names of those who have been similarly transferred to the Rural Development Department by preparing State wise seniority list. But the petitioner unfortunately found that those who have been appointed subsequent to the petitioner and who were junior to him had been categorised as senior. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent had issued G.O.Ms.No.65 including the names of those who have been similarly transferred to the Rural Development Department by preparing State wise seniority list. But the petitioner unfortunately found that those who have been appointed subsequent to the petitioner and who were junior to him had been categorised as senior. When the petitioner gave a representation seeking reasons, it was found that his initial date of joining was considered as 01.12.1986 instead of 28.02.1986. It is under those circumstances this writ petition has been filed seeking correction of the initial date of joining as 28.02.1986 and to consider the petitioner over and above the juniors who had been subsequently appointed after 28.02.1996 and to grant necessary terminal and monetary benefits to the petitioner herein. 5. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is relevant to extract para Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 & 11 and the same reads as follows:- “5. It is submitted that the correct date of joining of the petitioner have not been considered in all the levels and accordingly orders was passed in several occasions. The G.O.Ms.No.72 P & AR Dept. dated 28.01.1983 states that “Revision of the seniority in a post should be submitted to the concerned authority within three years of appointment to a category. Applications received after the said period shall be rejected. However orders resulting from mistake of facts, this instructions are not applicable to revisional case”. Therefore the request of the petitioner shall be considered to fix the revised seniority. 8. It is submitted that the actual joining date of 28.08.1986 in the post of Plot Watcher has not been considered in all aspect to revise the seniority of the petitioner in all the stages. So that the petitioners juniors maybe got their seniority before the petitioner. 9. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner is true, but his request was not considered based on the actual joining date of 28.01.1986. Hence, the revision requested by the petitioner is to be considered in accordance to the actually joining date as on 28.01.1986. 10. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner is true because the revision of the seniority made by the Head of the Department vide G.O.Ms.No.64 (E&F) (FR.II) Dept. dated 18.03.1999 the actual date of joining in the post of Plot Watcher (28.01.1986) had not been considered. 10. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner is true because the revision of the seniority made by the Head of the Department vide G.O.Ms.No.64 (E&F) (FR.II) Dept. dated 18.03.1999 the actual date of joining in the post of Plot Watcher (28.01.1986) had not been considered. But the joining date of the petitioner wrongly taken as 01.12.1986 without any recordical evidence. 11. It is submitted that based on the application of the petitioner dated 08.02.2021 an another report was also submitted by the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division vide reference No.E2/1518/2020 dated 04.03.2021 to the Head of the Department for making necessary corrections in the state vide seniority list. But, the report of the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore has not been considered for the revision of the seniority of the petitioner.” 6. The main ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had initially joined on 28.02.1986 as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis. In order to bring them into regular service, the Government had taken a policy decision to transfer some of the Plot Watchers to the Rural Development Department. The petitioner was one among those who had been so transferred to that Department. The petitioner thereafter was working in the Panchayat Office. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner discharged last duty for a period of 42 months. Thereafter, those who had been working as Plot Watchers had been brought into regular service and a seniority list was brought up by the Government. But those who had been transferred to other department like the petitioner to the Rural Development Department were omitted to be included in the regular list of the seniority list. Thereafter, a further Government order had been passed wherein those who have been so transferred to the Rural Development Department had also been included in the seniority list. 7. In this connection, the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.65 taking into consideration even those Plot Watchers who have been transferred to the Rural Development Department. But even then, the petitioner's seniority was considered as if he had joined on 01.12.1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to an internal communication from the District Forest Officer at Perambalur to the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore dated 22.05.2014 in Na.Ka.No.1843/14/pa which was with reference to the representation given by the petitioner on 15.05.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to an internal communication from the District Forest Officer at Perambalur to the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore dated 22.05.2014 in Na.Ka.No.1843/14/pa which was with reference to the representation given by the petitioner on 15.05.2020. In that particular communication from District Forest Officer, Perambalur to the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore it had been specifically stated that the petitioner had joined the service on 28.02.1986 and had discharged the duty till 14.08.1989 and thereafter had been transferred to the Rural Development Department. The learned counsel therefore claims that this communication between the District Forest Officer, Perambalur and the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore, clearly reflects that the petitioner had initially joined on 28.02.1986 and not on 01.12.1986 as contended in the impugned order. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader had been extremely fair in stating that while considering the actual joining date of the petitioner, the date of joining as Plot Watcher was on 28.02.1986 had not been considered. It is thus seen that the relief sought by the petitioner necessarily has to be considered by this Court. In the impugned order, the petitioner had been categorised as having joined on 01.12.1986 which fact is wrong. It has to be corrected. The petitioner will necessarily have to be placed as a senior to all those who had joined on and after 28.02.1986. The seniority list has to necessarily be re-worked and the petitioner will have to be paid monetary benefits as if he had joined duty initially as Plot Watcher on 28.02.1986 and the records will have to be corrected that he had joined duty on 28.02.1986 and not on 01.12.1986 as contended in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to correct the date of joining of the petitioner as 28.02.1986 instead of 01.12.1986 and grant retrospective appointment and benefits to the post of Plot Watcher on par with his juniors on 24.01.1995 and pass appropriate necessary orders in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.