M MAHALINGAM Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner in W.P. No. 8019 of 2013 joined as Plot Watcher in the Forest Department on daily wage basis on 21.8.1975. While he was working in the Forest Department, he was deputed to work as Plot Watcher in the Rural Development Department from 15.8.1990. Thereafter, when he was called back to the parent department on 3.12.1994, 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 21.8.1975 to 3.12.1994 was not taken into account for the purpose of calculation of pension. Therefore, he made a representation dated 5.11.2011 to the respondents to count half of the service rendered by him on daily wage basis from 21.8.1975 till 3.12.1994 by condoning the break in period from 4.12.1994 till 30.12.1999 along with regular service from 31.12.1999 till his retirement on 30.11.2010.

(2.) 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 1.7.1980 till 7.5.1992 and his break in service period was from 18.3.1992 till 7.5.1992, He was sanctioned pension from 8.5.1992 till his retirement on 30.11.2008.

(3.) In the above said fact and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to note G.O.Ms. No. 41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 9.2.2010, 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 8.5.1992. Hence, in my considered opinion, I find there is no reason for the respondent not to condone the said break in period.