S DHANAKOTTI Vs. PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 11.03.2011 and consequently direct the first respondent to pay the monthly pension, commutation of pension and pension arrears of the monthly pension, surrender leave salary and other monetary and service benefits to the Petitioner as available to the cadre of Forest Watcher by taking into account half of the service rendered by him as Plot Watcher from 1976 to 23.03.2003 along with his service as Forest Watcher from 24.03.2003 till the date of his superannuation on 30.04.2010 with effect from 01.05.2010 with 18% interest.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition was posted for admission on 30.03.2011, the learned Government Advocate (Forest) was directed to find out whether the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by my earlier order made in W.P.No.25293 of 2010, dated 30.11.2010. Today, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the issue is partly covered by the said order, however the only difference is that there is 13 days break in service of the petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, if the alleged break in service of 13 days is condoned, as the said break has occurred due to his posting at Ooty, the petitioner will get all the benefits.

(3.) . Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition and in the light of the representation made by the petitioner on 01.12.2010, this Court is constrained to direct the first respondent to give the benefit of G.O.(D) No.332, E&F (F.2) Department, dated 19.11.2008 in respect of the petitioner herein as it was given in respect of one V.Murugan, a similarly placed officer, after due approval from the proposal already sent to the Government, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the first respondent is not able to pass order within the stipulated period of twelve weeks, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court." 5. In pursuant to the orders of this Court, the second respondent passed an order on 11.03.2011 stating that there was a break in services of the petitioner for a period of 12 days from 11.03.2003 to 23.03.2003 i.e., before his regular appointment and hence the benefit of G.O. (Ms) No.408, Finance (Pension) Department dated 25.08.2009 cannot be extended to the petitioner. Challenging the said order passed by the second respondent and for other consequential reliefs, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.