P.Sakkarai Vs The Principal Chief

The appellant was the writ petitioner and had unsuccessfully put forth a challenge to an order passed by the Megamalai Wildlife Division dated 30.12.2015.

¶26

The facts have been captured succinctly in the order of the writ court and reiterated before us by Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned counsel who appears for the appellant. The appellant had joined service on 09.01.1981, superannuating on 30.04.2014. Thereafter, he files a representation on 27.05.2015 wherein he seeks promotion and all consequential benefits as had been extended to his colleagues, specifically, one K.Soundarrajan. He places reliance upon a Circular issued in 1986 that provided for uniformed seniority across all divisions

¶27

2/7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A(MD)No.2935 of 2025

¶30

of the Forest Department.

¶31

The claim of the appellant had been contested on various grounds and Mr.Sadiq Raja appearing for the respondents reiterates the defence as put forth before the writ court. He points out that the representation is itself bleated and was filed an year after the petitioner's retirement. That apart, the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought even on merits in light of the extant Rules. As far as the claim of parity is concerned, the appellant had suffered various orders of reversion, including during his service and hence cannot claim parity with his colleagues.

¶32

Having heard both learned counsel, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal. There is no justification that has been put forth for the bleated claim of the representation in 2015 seeking promotion during his service with all consequential benefits. The claim is clearly an afterthought and hence the delay in representation of the claim would be fatal to the claim itself. That apart, on the claim of parity, the writ court has extracted the counter filed by the respondents, which, we reproduce herein below as well:-

¶33

3/7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A(MD)No.2935 of 2025

¶36

“5.It is humbly submitted that the petitioner by giving a representation to the respondents after a long period from his retirement and created a cause of action and invited an order from the fourth respondent and filed a writ petition challenging that order. Creation of cause of action after a long period and filing of the present writ petition is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma case reported in 2015-1 LW 810. So the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

8.I further state that whileso, by proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 9.4.1999 the petitioner was punished for reduction of pay to the bottom of time scale for 5 years with cumulative effect and he was also suffered reversion order of the 3^rd respondent dated 13.5.1999 reverting the petitioner to the lower post. The petitioner challenged the same before the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and on the strength of the interim order the petitioner was allowed to join service and the said case was transferred as writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in WP Nos.41633 of 2006 & 19469/2007 which were dismissed on 26.6.2009. Subsequently the petitioner joined the service on 3.12.2010 as Forest Watcher, he lost his seniority, he did not claim either his seniority or filed any appeal against any list of seniority or made any claim for his promotion during his service after dismissal of his writ petition and retired on 30.4.2014 without any claim for seniority or promotion. In fact, the petitioner was allowed to join service as Forest Watcher from 1999 only on the basis of the interim order of the

¶38

4/7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.A(MD)No.2935 of 2025

¶41

court.”

¶42

A perusal of the paragraphs above, shows that the appellant

¶43

has been visited with the punishment of revision of pay and reversion and hence on account of punishments suffered, he cannot claim parity with his colleagues.

¶44