A PALANISAMY Vs. PRINCIPLE CHIEF CONSERVATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent dated 6. 12. 2007. Based on a direction of this Court, the second respondent considered the claim of the petitioner dated 13. 12. 1999 and informed that he was not included in the regular time sale of pay in the cadre of Plot Watcher/forest watcher on the ground that the petitioner has not continuously worked from 1981 to 1998 as Forest Watcher without any break.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Plot Watcher on 1. 7. 1981 on a consolidated pay by the second respondent and he passed up to IX Standard and it is his case that he is working in the said post for the past 26 years and many number of persons appointed along with him were brought under the regular time scale, which has been denied to the petitioner. 2 (a ). It is stated that the petitioner has made several representations and lastly on 5. 6. 1999 for bringing him under the time scale of pay and the Forest Ranger recommended his name stating that the petitioner has been working in the north range from April, 1999 till the said date. It appears that the first respondent has sought for certain clarifications regarding missing pay slips for the period from 1981 to 1988 in order to include the petitioner"s name in the State wide seniority list for time scale appointment and the Forest Ranger, in turn, has furnished the particulars. 2 (b ). It is stated that though the Forest Ranger furnished the particulars on 20. 9. 2006, there was no progress. The petitioner has also quoted that the persons who were appointed in Vellore Region as Forest Guards were regularized by the Government in the order dated 11. 6. 1992 and subsequently by another order dated 26. 11. 1999, further regularization was made. The petitioner has been paid the salary of Rs. 850/- per month as consolidated pay and for regularization, he filed W. P. No. 23979 of 2007 and this Court by order dated 16. 7. 2007 directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. It was thereafter the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner as stated above.

(3.) THE impugned order is challenged on various grounds including that the petitioner has been continuously working for the past 26 years. The petitioner has also stated that in respect of pay slips for the months from 7/81 to 5/91 and 7/98 which are stated to be not available with the respondents, they are in fact available and the petitioner has also filed the same in the typed set of papers. Since the petitioner is working from 1981 onwards, he should have been included in the State wide seniority list published on 13. 12. 1999. It is also stated that the Government in G. O. Ms. 22 P and AR Department dated 28. 2. 2006, issued directions to regularize the services of daily wages employees and that has not been taken note of. It is also stated that in respect of various persons working in the same department regularization was effected, but it has been denied to the petitioner.