Allowed

T.Leelavathi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Sept 2014WP/25162/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Forest Department employees claiming regularisation for an equivalent post of their juniors, were granted judicial intervention. The court ordered the respondents to appoint the petitioners as regular Forest Watchers on par with their juniors within twelve weeks, with back tenure from the date juniors were regularised but no monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to regularise petitioners as Forest Watchers on par with juniors within twelve weeks from receipt of copy of order; entitlement from date juniors were regularised but no monetary be

T.Leelavathi Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 16.09.2014

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.25162 of 2014 and WP.NO.25163 of 2014 1. T.Leelavathi 2. M.Neelavathi 3. M.Boopathy 4. K.Annamalai 5. M.Ramasamy 6. T.Nanjappan 7. K.Ramachandra 8. A.Mudiappan [ PETITIONERS in W.P.No.25162 of 2014] 1. G.Thiruvenkatam 2. M.Sermalai 3. A.Narayanan 4. K.Ayyanthurai 5. S.Seenivasan 6. B.Munusamy 7. A.Sakthivel 8. K.Ramalingam 9. D.Rajamani

¶6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶7

10.C.M.Unian

¶8

11.V.Munusamy 12.S.Madhappan [ PETITIONERS in W.P.No.25163 of 2014]

¶9

Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai-15. [ RESPONDENTS in both the writ petitions ] Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as regular time scale Forest Watchers taking into account of their seniority and qualification on par with their Juniors in the light of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.15661 of 2006 dated 10.3.2008 W.A.No.690 of 2008 dated 13.10.2009, W.P.No.23374 of 2008 dated 30.10.2009 and W.A.No.607 of 2010 dated 29.3.2010 and proceedings of the second respondent dated 7.1.2011 and confer all consequential benefits. For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Mani (For both the petitions) For Respondents ... Mr.N.Inbanathan Govt. Advocate (Forest) (For both the petitions) ---------------

¶10

COMMON ORDER

¶11

Mr.N.Inbanathan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶14

2.It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the Forest Department and subsequently, their services were regularised, but not on par with their juniors. However, the juniors to the petitioners, who are able to read and write and acquired SSLC qualification were promoted earlier than petitioners 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. Though some of the petitioners were brought into regular time scale of pay as Forest Watchers and some of them were promoted to the post of Forest Guards, some of the petitioners have not even brought on cadre post of Forest Watcher, but in a non-cadre post of Plot Watcher (Suprnumerary).

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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.

¶16

4.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶17

5.Considering the fact that the petitioners' juniors were already regularised, even before the petitioners could get regularised, as per the decision referred to above, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners on par with their juniors as Forest Watchers, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are entitled to only regularisation from the date on which, the juniors were regularised and they are not entitled to any monetary benefits from that date.

¶18

6.With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶19

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CSII) Dated:25/9/2014

¶20

True Copy

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

cla

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶26

The Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building
Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
+13 cc to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate sr.44133 &44131
+2 ccs to Government Pleader vide sr.44315,44327
W.P.Nos.25162 and
25163 of 2014
gj(co)
aa25/9/2014

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Leelavathi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Leelavathi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madras Hotel Ashoka (P) Ltd. Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

K.Anjapuli, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Arumugam Vs the Chief Manager

S.Palanisamy, Vs the District Manager

A.Mathiyazhagan Vs Elangovan

S.Madhavan Vs M.Vijayakumar I.A.S