V MANOHARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent was initially engaged on daily wages for undertaking various activities at Rural Fuel Wood Range-II, Tirupattur. He worked there from 01 April 1999 to 31 March 2000. Thereafter, he was given appointment, by order dated 02 March 2000, on compassionate basis taking into account the unfortunate death of his father who as a plot watcher worked for a period of 28 years in the Forest Department. The Government issued an order in G.O.(Ms) No.95 dated 07 August 2009 regularising the services of the Plot watchers and Village Social Forestry Workers who have completed ten years of service. The claim made by the appellant for regularisation was not considered on the ground that he had not put in 10 years of continuous service. The appellant therefore filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.13262 of 2010 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services in the post of Forest Watcher in terms of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.95 Environment and Forests (FR2) Department dated 07 August 2009. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of continuous service. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up with this intra court appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, by placing reliance on the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.202 dated 18 December 2013 contended that the services of similarly placed persons, who have not completed 10 years of services have been regularised by the Government. According to the learned counsel, in case earlier service for the period from 01 April 1992 to 31 March 2000 is taken into account,the appellant would qualify for regularisation, as he had rendered 10 years of continued service. The learned counsel contended that the application submitted by the mother of the appellant for compassionate appointment was kept pending for years together. It is his contention that in case the services of the father of the appellants was regularised, in view of 28 years of services, the appellant would have been given compassionate appointment against a regular vacancy. The learned counsel contended that the respondents having given the benefits of the order for regularisation even to those who have not put in 10 years of continuous service, was not correct in denying similar relief to the appellant.

(3.) We have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.