S SUBRAMANI Vs. T S ARJUNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to regularise the petitioners service as Plot/Forest Watchers in the light of G.O. (3D) No. 12, Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department dated 29.04.2008 and the recommendation of the 3 rd respondent dated 22.12.2017 with all consequential monetary and service benefits by considering the petitioners representation dated 04.12.2017.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that all the writ petitioners were appointed as Part Time Mazdoors in between the years 1978 - 1986 and thereafter, engaged as full time Mazdoors during the year 1995. The writ petitioners are working for long years and their services are regularly utilized by the Forest Department. Under these circumstances, the authorities had recommended the case of the writ petitioners for grant of regularisation or permanent absorption. Such recommendation were not considered by the competent authorities and still, the writ petitioners are serving as daily wage employees without any scope for regularisation. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that even during the year 2005, the name of the writ petitioners were included in the list of persons, who all are eligible for regularisation. The case of the writ petitioners is that they are eligible for grant of regularisation in the year 2005 itself. The names of all the petitioners are found in the recommendation dated 15.02.2005. Therefore, the writ petitioners ought to have been brought under regular time scale of pay based on the said recommendation dated 15.02.2005.

(3.) It is contended that the Government also issued orders granting the benefit of regularisation to the daily wage employees on several occasions. The similarly placed persons were already absorbed and the names of the writ petitioners alone have not been considered by the respondents. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petition.