M. ESWARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellants/Writ Petitioners against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the appellants herein to make a detailed representation to the first respondent herein in respect of their grievance and on such receipt of the said representation, the first respondent was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders of merits and in accordance with law.

(2.) Heard Mr.S.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Mr.S.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants were originally appointed on a daily wage basis through the employment exchange in the year 1977 in Cinchona Department. On completion of 10 years of service, they were brought into regular time scale of pay in the cadre of Field Man Grade-II in the year 1988. The State of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to abolish the Cinchona Department and the activities of the said Department were to be taken over by the Forest Department including the pension liability of the Cinchona Department if any. The said proceedings came to be challenged in respect of their absorption in the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4487 of 1993. The Tribunal accepting the claim of the workers ordered that the staff working in the erstwhile Cinchona Department to be repatriated to the parent Department namely the Forest Department. Thereafter by G.O.Ms.No.275, Environment and Forest Department, dtd. 6/11/1996, staff of the erstwhile Cinchona Department were absorbed in the Forest Department. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the appellants were absorbed as Forest Watcher Grade-II and their seniority in the cadre of Forest Watcher Grade-II was to be reckoned with the initial date of appointment in the post of Field Man Grade-II, in the erstwhile Cinchona Department. However, in the case of the appellants, they were not placed in the seniority by taking into consideration their appointment as Field Man Grade-II in the year 1988. Hence, they had made a representation to the authorities to refix their seniority based on their date of appointment as Field Man Grade-II.