A.Palanisamy v. The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building Chennai 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE:10-11-2009CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.8750 of 2008A.Palanisamy ... Petitionervs.1.The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building Chennai 15.2.The District Forest Officer Salem Division, Salem. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to Call forthe records pertaining to the order of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.11493/97 E2 dated 6.12.2007 and quash the same and direct therespondents to bring the petitioner on a regular time scale of pay onpar with his immediate juniors in the cadre of Plot Watchers/ForestWatcher.For petitioners: Mr.Hidayathulla KhanFor respondents : Mr.P.Satish Government Advocate (Forest)ORDERThe writ petition is directed against the order of thesecond respondent dated 6.12.2007. Based on a direction of thisCourt, the second respondent considered the claim of the petitionerdated 13.12.1999 and informed that he was not included in theregular time sale of pay in the cadre of Plot Watcher/Forest Watcheron the ground that the petitioner has not continuously worked from1981 to 1998 as Forest Watcher without any break.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Plot Watcher on 1.7.1981 ona consolidated pay by the second respondent and he passed up to IXStandard and it is his case that he is working in the said post for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the past 26 years and many number of persons appointed along with himwere brought under the regular time scale, which has been denied tothe petitioner. 2(a). It is stated that the petitioner has made severalrepresentations and lastly on 5.6.1999 for bringing him under thetime scale of pay and the Forest Ranger recommended his name statingthat the petitioner has been working in the north range from April,1999 till the said date. It appears that the first respondent hassought for certain clarifications regarding missing pay slips forthe period from 1981 to 1988 in order to include the petitioner’sname in the State wide seniority list for time scale appointment andthe Forest Ranger, in turn, has furnished the particulars. 2(b). It is stated that though the Forest Ranger furnished theparticulars on 20.9.2006, there was no progress. The petitioner hasalso quoted that the persons who were appointed in Vellore Region asForest Guards were regularized by the Government in the order dated11.6.1992 and subsequently by another order dated 26.11.1999, furtherregularization was made. The petitioner has been paid the salary ofRs.850/- per month as consolidated pay and for regularization, hefiled W.P.No.23979 of 2007 and this Court by order dated 16.7.2007directed the second respondent to consider the representation of thepetitioner. It was thereafter the impugned order came to be passedrejecting the claim of the petitioner as stated above.3. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds includingthat the petitioner has been continuously working for the past 26years. The petitioner has also stated that in respect of pay slipsfor the months from 7/81 to 5/91 and 7/98 which are stated to be notavailable with the respondents, they are in fact available and thepetitioner has also filed the same in the typed set of papers. Sincethe petitioner is working from 1981 onwards, he should have beenincluded in the State wide seniority list published on 13.12.1999.It is also stated that the Government in G.O.Ms.22 P & AR Departmentdated 28.2.2006, issued directions to regularize the services ofdaily wages employees and that has not been taken note of. It isalso stated that in respect of various persons working in the samedepartment regularization was effected, but it has been denied to thepetitioner.4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it ismainly stated that the pay slips in respect of the petitioner for theperiod from 7/81 to 12/81, 1/82 to 12/82, 1/83 to 12/83, 1/84 to9/84, 7/86 to 10/86, 4/91 to 5/91 and 7/98 were not available in theOffice. After the High Court has directed to consider therepresentation of the petitioner, the impugned order came to bepassed. It is denied that the petitioner has worked continuously asa Plot Watcher from 1.7.1981. It is stated that the petitioner’s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ name was forwarded by the second respondent to the Conservator ofForests, Salem Circle on 18.6.1993 to appoint him as a Mali, sincethe petitioner is not having the required qualification of chestmeasurement for the post of Forest Watcher. It was, in thosecircumstances, the first respondent called for particulars in respectof the petitioner in his letter dated 17.5.1999, so as to include himin the consolidated list and the petitioner’s name was forwarded tothe Conservator of Forests, Salem Circle on 10.4.2000 and alsoforwarded to the first respondent. Since the petitioner cannot beincluded in the consolidated seniority list, if he has not workedcontinuously as a Plot Watcher, particulars were called for. 5. It is stated that the Ranger Shervaroys North Range hasfurnished the details on 27.11.2004 to the second respondent but, theparticulars were not complete since the details in respect of July,1982 to August, 1984, March, July, August of 1985, July, August andSeptember, 1986, May, 1985, March and June, 1989, July, 1991,February to November, 1995, January to March 1996, July to October1998, March, 1999, February, 2001 and March, September,2002 weremissing. Therefore, a letter was sent by the second respondent on16.02.2005 to the Forest Ranger, SHervaroys North Range and thedetails were received on 28.6.2005. 6. It is stated that some of the vouchers found in the cashbooks indicate the names of persons actually engaged and the wagespaid to them and it was found that the petitioner tampered therecords and produced the Xerox copy of the manipulated records as ifthe petitioner was working during the above said period. Theparticulars of those vouchers given in the counter affidavit are asfollows:Dates10.7.81Voucher No.24Dates 10.7.81Voucher No.25Dates10.7.81Voucher No.26Dates14.8.81Voucher No.18Dates7.2.81Voucher No.15Dates1.8.83Voucher No.4In these circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner is notentitled to be included in the State wide seniority list. 7. A reading of the impugned order shows that the reason forwhich the petitioner’s name was not included in the State wideseniority list of either Forest Ranger or Mali is that the documentsrelating to the payments made to the petitioner were not availablewith the respondents who are expected to maintain the same. A newstand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the petitionerproduced the vouchers by tampering with the original vouchers andtherefore, they are not reliable. In my considered view, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents should have taken proper steps to see that the recordswhich are expected to be maintained by the second respondent wereproperly verified to find out whether at the relevant point of time,the petitioner was paid salary or not. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that he has beencontinuously working for 26 years as Plot Watcher and in such a case,the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be included in theState wide seniority list for Plot Watcher/Forest Watcher/Mali maydepend upon his physical qualifications that may be required for thesaid post, but, that cannot be a ground to deny such a right which isavailable to him, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to, sinceit is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year1981. 9. It is also relevant to note which is not in dispute that theGovernment has passed various Government Orders includingG.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006 for the purpose of regularizing theconsolidated and daily wages employees who have been continuouslyworking for many years. In fact, even in respect of Plot Watchers,the Government has now passed G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and ForestDepartment, dated 7.8.2009 for the purpose of bringing those PlotWatchers under the regular time scale of pay subject to variousconditions stated therein and that is applicable for various postslike Plot Watchers/Mali/Office Assistants, etc. In such view of thematter, when the reason given in the impugned order does not discloseanything about the so called manipulation which is stated in thecounter affidavit, it is not possible to accept the contention of thelearned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner should bedenied the right of being included in the State wide seniority listof Forest Watcher/Mali depending upon his required physicalqualifications. In any event, such right has to be conferred by therespondents based on the proper appreciation of records. 10. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands setaside with direction to the respondents to consider the case of thepetitioner afresh. While considering so, it is open to thepetitioner to produce all relevant documents which are in hispossession to prove that he has been in continuous employment eversince his date of employment in 1981 till date and if such documentsare found to be pay slips, it is for the second respondent to verifythe same in the light of the registers maintained by the respondentsregarding service particulars of the petitioner and pass appropriateorders. It is made clear that while passing such order, it is forthe second respondent to decide as to whether the name of petitionerhas to be included in the State wide seniority list of either ForestWatchers/Mali depending upon the eligibility of the petitioner, basedon his physical conditions. While doing so, the second respondentshall take note of various Government Orders regarding regularization https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of services of consolidated pay employees including G.O.Ms.No.22Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006and G.O.Ms.No.95 Environment and Forests (V2) Department dated7.8.2009. Such exercise shall be done by the respondentsexpeditiously and in proper manner. It is made clear that on receiptof a copy of this order, the petitioner shall make a properrepresentation to the second respondents along with the records whichthe petitioner desires to rely upon within two weeks and thereafter,the second respondent shall pass orders as stated above within aperiod of eight weeks after verifying with the records and givingopportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarkh To1.The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building Chennai 15.2.The District Forest Officer Salem Division, Salem.+ 1 cc to Spl. Govt., Pleader (F) SR 60417W.P.No.8750 of 2008SAI (CO)RH (4.12.09)