THE HONOURABLE MR v. Secretary to Government

far as the monetary benefits denied to the Petitioners herein in theaforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal and direct theRespondents herein to give monetary benefits to the petitioners w.e.f5.1.98, the date on which, their Juniors were promoted as Foresters.W.P.30008/06 :- to call for the records pertaining to the G.O.275(Environ & Forest) dated 6.11.96 and the consequential order by the2nd Respondent in Ref.Ka.Na.K2/66555/96, dt.22.5.97 in so far as theapplicants are concerned and set aside the same and consequentlydirect the Respondents to designate the applicants as 'Forester' andfix their inter-se seniority accordingly with all attendant benefits.W.P.12523/07 :- to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent inproceedings No.AB1/34731/2000 dated 14.1.2003 and direct theRespondent to include the names of the applicants in the listreleased therein and promote the applicants as “Foresters” with allconsequential benefits.For Petitioner..Mr.V.ChockalingamFor Respondents..Mr.K.Rajassekar, Addl.G.P.(Forest)*******COMMON ORDERM.SATHYANARAYANAN, JThe orders passed herein will govern the disposal of these threewrit petitions.W.P.No.18985 of 2003 is filed by T.Williams, A.Dharmaraj,P.T.Stephen and M.Murugan against the respondents for the issuance ofwrit of certiorarified mandamus to set aside the order dated29.11.2001 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short"the Tribunal") in so far as the denial of monetary benefits isconcerned and direct the respondents to give monetary benefits tothem with effect from 5.1.1998 - the date on which, their juniorswere promoted as Foresters. The averments in the writ petition areextracted in brief as given hereunder:-2. The petitioners are Selection Grade Forest Guards working invarious places in the Forest Department and they were originallyselected through Employment Exchange and appointed as Field men inthe Cinchona Department, Government of Tamil Nadu between 1968-1975.The petitioners were subsequently promoted as Overseers between 1969and 1985 in the same department and they became Selection GradeOverseers on completion of 10 years of service as Overseers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1990, decided to windup Cinchona Department and accordingly passed an order inG.O.Ms.No.214 (Environment and Forests) dated 30.3.1990. As per thesaid G.O., the lands belonging to the Cinchona Department were placedpartly at the disposal of the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation CorporationLimited (TANTEA). The remaining lands were partly placed at thedisposal of the Forest Department. Another Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.221 (Environment and Forests) dated 3.4.1990 came to bepassed winding up of the Cinchona Department. The relevant portionof G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 3.4.1990 is extracted hereunder:-"After careful consideration of all the factors theGovernment now order as follows:-(i)The Department of Cinchona will be wound up withimmediate effect. The residuary activities of theDepartment will be taken over by the Forest Departmentincluding any pension liability of Cinchona Departmentstaff.(ii)All the assets and liabilities of the CinchonaDepartment will stand transferred to M/s Tamil Nadu TeaPlantation Corporation Limited.(iii)Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited will takeover the entire labour force of Cinchona Department andassume all existing obligations towards them includingwages, ESI/EPF contributions etc. with effect from1.4.1990. The wages payable to the Cinchona Labour takenover by Tamilnadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited willbe fixed separately by Tamil Nadu Tea PlantationCorporation Limited and shall not be less than that paidnow by Cinchona Department.(iv)Tamilnadu Tea Plantation Corporation will also take overthe entire Government Staff of Cinchona Department ondeputation. The Forest Department will be the parentDepartment for these staff with effect from 1.4.1990 withthe winding-up of the Cinchona Department. The terms andconditions of deputation will issue separately".4. The petitioners had completed three years of deputation inTANTEA and they submitted representations praying for repatriation tothe parent department. However, it did not fructify. Hence thepetitioners filed an Original Application in O.A.No.4487 of 1993before the Tribunal through their association praying for appropriatedirection to the respondents to repatriate them to their parentdepartment and for appropriate postings in the said department. TheGovernment had opposed the said original application. The Tribunalhas passed final order dated 18.9.1995 directing the Government torepatriate the petitioners to their parent department namelythe Forest Department and give them appropriate postings within six https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ months. Since the Government has failed to comply with the orderspassed by the Tribunal, the petitioners had invoked the contemptjurisdiction by filing C.A.No.328 of 1996 and notices to thecontemnors were ordered by the Tribunal.5. The Government after the receipt of notices in contemptpetition, had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.275 (Environment andForests) dated 6.11.1996, absorbing all the Government staff of theCinchona Department, in the Forest Department, against certaincategories of posts. According to the petitioners that though therewere certain anomalies in the fitment under the above said G.O.,which were also pointed out to the Tribunal, the Tribunal had closedthe contempt application on the ground that the order of the Tribunalwas substantially complied with. The Tribunal has closed the saidcontempt application vide order dated 13.3.1997 granting liberty tothe petitioners, to approach the Tribunal, for further orders andalso directed the respondents to rectify the anomalies.6. The petitioners further submitted that the posting ordersissued by the Government on 22.5.1997, bristled with anomalies and nocorrect fitment or grade, has been given to them. Therefore, inorder to set right the anomaly through legal process, the petitionershad invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing theapplication in O.A.No.9154 of 1997 praying to designate them asForesters instead of Forest Guards. The said O.A. was admitted on19.11.1997 and an interim order was granted to the effect that "anypromotion made will be subject to the result of the O.A". The saidO.A., on abolition of the Tribunal, has been transferred to the fileof this Court and numbered as W.P.No.30008 of 2006. 7. The petitioners once again filed a contempt application inC.A.No.386 of 1997 in view of the liberty given to them in theearlier order passed in C.A.No.328 of 1996 on 13.03.1997. During thependency of the said contempt application and O.A.No.9154 of 1997,the second respondent promoted some Forest Guards as Forester videorder dated 5.1.1998. The Forest Guards, who were promoted asForesters, according to the petitioners, were far juniors to them andhence they once again filed an application in O.A.No.1423 of 1998before the Tribunal and it was admitted on 20.2.1998 and an order ofad-interim direction was issued on 13.03.1998 in M.A.No.1481 of 1998stating "not to fill up 26 posts of Forester" in 1996 panel. 8. The petitioners further averred that in violation of the saidorder, the respondents filled up all the posts and hence they filedone more contempt application in C.A.No.152 of 1999 and even duringthe pendency of the said contempt application, the respondents issueda panel for 1998 and 1999 on 19.5.2000 by which the claim of thepetitioners was once again overlooked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The Tribunal took-up O.A.No.1423 and 8271 of 1998.O.A.No.1423 of 1998 was filed by T.Willams and 25 others includingone A.Dharmaraj. O.A.No.8271 of 1998 was filed by S.Thangaraj and 22others. The Tribunal had disposed of the said Original Applicationsby a common order dated 29.11.2001. The Tribunal has passed thefollowing order:-"Therefore, it can be taken that the petitioners wereabsorbed in an equal cadre. Hence, they cannot be treatedas juniors to the persons already serving in the absorbedcadre. 9. When the question of inter-se-seniority isconsidered, the date of appointment in the cadre from whichthey were appointed has to be taken into account. Thelearned senior counsel has produced two lists containingcertain particulars. From the list it is seen that theabsorbed persons like the petitioners were appointed to thepost they were holding just prior to their absorption ondifferent dates. The dates given in the lists showing thedate of appointment to the cadre from which they wereabsorbed should be taken as the date of appointment in thenew absorbed cadre viz., Selection Grade Forest Guards andForest Guards. The inter-se-seniority must be fixed takinginto account the dates contained in the lists.10. It is represented that without fixing the inter-se-seniority properly, the Forest Guards have been givenpromotion ignoring the claims of the petitioners. Now therespondents have to fix the inter-se-seniority of thepetitioners by including the names of the petitioners inthe seniority list mentioned above. Notional promotionshould also be given to the petitioners, after re-fixationof seniority list, if juniors have been given promotion.The notional promotion should be given from the date onwhich their immediate juniors given promotion. But,however, monetary benefits shall be given from the datewhen the petitioners assume charge in the promoted post.However, seniority in the promoted cadre shall be reckonedfrom the date on which notional promotion to be given tothe Petitioners. Both the petitions are allowed andordered as above. 10. The crux of the said order is that the petitioners ought tobe granted promotion as Foresters with notional fixation but withoutmonetary benefits. However, respondents under misinterpretation ofthe said order, had issued another panel for 2000-2001 on 14.1.2003giving promotion to 75 persons who are in the cadre of Forest Guards https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as Foresters once again overlooking the claim of the petitioners.The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2001 inO.A.No.1423 of 1998 and O.A.No.8271 of 1998 in so far as denying thebenefit of actual monetary benefits, filed the present writ petition. 11. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed common counter reiterating thesubmissions made by them before the Tribunal. It is submitted by therespondents 1 and 2 that they immediately pursued action on theorders passed by the Tribunal and they found that the subject matterwas a complicated one as it involved amalgamation of staff in twodepartments in one category. Therefore, they examined theimplementation of the order with reference to the statutoryprovisions, administrative procedures, implication on the promotionof Tamil Nadu Forest Department Staff, financial aspects etc. Therespondents 1 and 2 further averred that in the meanwhile, one of theapplicants in O.A.No.1423 of 1998 namely A.Dharmaraj had filed a writpetition in W.P.No.27907 of 2004 praying for a direction directingthe respondents to grant promotion to him in the post of Forester inpursuant to the orders of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2001 inO.A.No.1427 of 1998. 12. This Court vide order dated 8.10.2004, had directed therespondents to implement the said order of the Tribunal within aperiod of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 13. The respondents in compliance of the common orders passed bythe Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1423 and 8271 of 1998 and W.P.No.27907 of2004, through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (secondrespondent), had sent a detailed reported dated 7.12.2001 to theGovernment for issuance of necessary orders. The Government afterexamining the matter in detail and following all the administrativeprocedures and after consulting other administrative departments hadissued orders in G.O.Ms.No.128, (Environment and Forest) Department,dated 4.8.2005. As per the said G.O., it has been decided to fixinter-se-seniority in terms of Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate Service Rules. Subsequently, based on G.O.Ms.No.128,dated 4.8.2005, the second respondent had issued a proceedings dated24.10.2005, wherein the petitioners' seniority in the post of ForestGuards were fixed as 19.7.1974, 21.1.1980, 10.4.1984 and 6.4.1985respectively. 14. It is further submitted by the respondents 1 and 2 in their counter that for appointment of Foresters by promotion of ForestGuard, Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rulesprescribes the following qualifications namely:(a) Must possess the minimum general educationalqualification specified in the schedule to the General Rules https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or must have rendered satisfactory service in ForestDepartment for a period not less than 8 years;(b) must have successfully completed a course of training inTamil Nadu Forestry College, Vaigai Dam if he had notalready undergone such training. The petitioners underwent Forest Guards training from 1.7.1997 to30.12.1997 and hence they are eligible for consideration forpromotion as Forester for the year 1999-2000. However, for the saidyear there was a 'nil' panel drawn and therefore, their names wereconsidered only for the panel year 2000-2001. With reference toother requisites such as undergoing any punishment, charge sheetetc., it is further averred by the respondents that the petitioners1,2, and 4 have already retired from service on 30.11.2004 and31.1.2007 respectively. 15. The respondents 1 and 2 had notionally promoted the secondpetitioner , third petitioner and fourth petitioner as Foresters inthe panel for the year 2000-2001 fixing seniority above the immediatejuniors to the petitioners vide proceedings dated 28.3.2006 and5.5.2006 respectively. However, they were not given any financialbenefit for the notional promotion given to them in terms of thecommon order passed by the Tribunal in the above said originalapplications.16. One of the petitioners herein namely A.Dharmaraj (secondpetitioner) filed a contempt petition No.367 of 2005 in W.P.No.27907of 2004. This Court has closed the said contempt petition on3.4.2006 by passing the following order:"The learned Additional Advocate General, representing therespondents has submitted that as per the order passed bythe Tribunal and the subsequent order passed by this Court,the seniority of the petitioner was re-fixed taking intoaccount of the date of the original appointment in Cinchonadepartment and that in so far as the promotion to the cadreof Forester is concerned, though the petitioner has passedthe requisite test, he has not completed the six monthstraining conducted by the Tamil Nadu Forestry College,Vaigai and that later he completed the said training duringthe period from 1.1.1998 to 30.6.1998 and thus, he satisfiedthe requirement only in the year 1998. It is further submitted by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that there was no vacancy in the year 1999 and onlyin the year 2000, a vacancy arose and soon after the panelwas prepared for the year 2000-2001, he was given promotionwith effect from 2001 and an order , dated 28.3.2006 wasalso passed by the respondents, giving promotion to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and that in so far as the monetary benefitsordered by the Tribunal and the order of this court isconcerned, necessary order will be passed within a period oftwo weeks and the same is recorded. In view of the submissions of the learned AdditionalAdvocate General, the order passed by this Court has beencomplied with. In case, the petitioner is not satisfiedwith the order, he can work out his remedy before theappropriates forum in accordance with law. Accordingly,this Contempt Petition is closed".17. The second respondent in compliance of the above said orderpassed by this Court had given notional promotion to the secondpetitioner namely A.Dharmaraj as Forester with effect from 7.2.2003i.e. the date of joining of Thiru.M.Kuppusamy, Forester who is juniorto the applicant vide proceedings dated 17.4.2006.18. It is further submitted by the respondents 1 and 2 in theircounter that Dharmaraj was given subsequent increment and arrearamount of Rs.12,574/- on 30.8.2006. 19. It is the specific contention of the respondents 1 and 2,that the claim of the petitioners that their services rendered inCinchona department prior to 1.4.1990 ought to be taken into accountwithout fulfilling the requirement to be complied with under therelevant Rules relating the promotion from the post of Forest Guardto Forester is untenable as the petitioners cannot be given anypromotion bye-passing the statutory requisites prescribed for theirpromotion. Respondents 1 and 2 also contended that this Court in acommon order dated 4.2.2003 in writ petition Nos.22900 of 2001 batchetc., had held that the promotion to the post of AssistantConservator of Forests if acceded to, that would result in totalviolation of the rules relating to the promotion and it will make amockery of whole purport and intent of the Rules which stipulatessatisfactory compliance of necessary stipulations. Therefore, therespondents 1 and 2 contended that the claim made by the petitionersherein for promotion without fulfilling the requisite qualificationwith retrospective effect is unsustainable in law and on facts andtherefore, prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 20. W.P.No.30008 of 2006 (O.A.No.9154 of 1997):- O.A.No.9154 of1997 filed by T.Williams and 25 others before the Tribunal, to setaside the impugned G.O.275 dated 6.11.1996 and the consequentialorder passed by the second respondent dated 22.5.1997 and direct therespondent to designate the petitioners as "Forester" and fix theirinter se seniority accordingly with all attendant benefits, onabolition was transferred to the file of this Court and numbered asW.P.No.30008 of 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. W.P.No.12523 of 2007 (O.A.No.733 of 2005):- T.Williams and22 others challenging the proceedings dated 14.1.2003 passed by thesecond respondent in which panel for promotion as Foresters in theyear 2000-2001 was released and to include them in the list ofForesters and direct the respondents to include their name in thelist and promote them as Foresters with all consequential benefits,filed O.A.No.733 of 2003 on the file of the Tribunal. On abolitionof the Tribunal, O.A.No.733 of 2003 was transferred to the file ofthis Court and numbered as W.P.No.12523 of 2007.22. The petitioners had reiterated their submissions made inW.P.No.18985 of 2003 and submitted that the impugned order dated14.1.2003 passed by the second respondent herein promoting personsother than the petitioners herein is in clear contravention ofearlier orders passed by the Tribunal and their services in theerstwhile Cinchona department between 1968 and 1975 has beenoverlooked and consequently their seniority also. 23. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed common counter affidavit in thewrit petition and reiterating the submissions made by them inW.P.No.18985 of 2003. 24. Mr.V.Chockalingam, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners in all the writ petitions made his submissions based onthe averments made in the writ petitions. The learned counselappearing for the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Courtto the common orders passed in O.A.No.1423 of 1998 and subsequentorders passed in the contempt application and also the orders passedby this Court in W.P.No.27907 of 2004 filed by one of the petitionersnamely A.Dharmaraj and thereafter the orders passed in O.A.No.1423 of1998 in contempt petition No.367 of 2005 filed by him. 25. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 4.8.2005, wherein the Governmenthad decided to fix the seniority of the former Cinchona staff whowere observed as Selection Grade Forest Guards and Forest Guards inthe Forest department subject to seniority already fixed therein(inter se seniority) under Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu StateSubordinate Service Rues. But the fact remains that theG.O.Ms.No.128 dated 4.8.2005 is not even in accordance with Rule 35(aa) of the State Subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, nonimplementation of the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as bythis Court on the part of the respondents 1 and 2, are per secontemptuous. 26. As regards the contention raised by the respondents1 and 2 that the petitioners had not complied with the pre requisite https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ qualification for appointment of Forester under Rule 5 of StateSubordinate Service Rules, it is submitted by the learned counsel forthe petitioner that the said Rule is not applicable to them for thereason that the second respondent has never raised such an issuebefore the Tribunal at the time of disposal of O.A.No.1423 and 8271of 1998. It is further contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioners that the petitioners were appointed between 1968 and 1975as Field men on regular basis in Cinchona department and thereafterthey were promoted as Overseers and Selection Grade Overseers in thesame department. Therefore, after much distance of time, theobjection regarding non compliance of pre-requisite qualification forappointment of Forester is wholly untenable.27. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted thatfactually speaking that all the petitioners who were formerlySelection Grade Overseers in Cinchona department and absorbed asSelection Grade Forester, Guards for the Forest Department hadcompleted Forest Guard training between July 1997 and December 1997as Forest Guard in that department. Therefore, they are seniors tothe said persons and the respondents 1 and 2 have to take intoconsideration their past services rendered in Cinchona departmentand fix their seniority above the said persons.28. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon thefollowing decisions:-(i)1986 WLR 291 - (G.Maria Selvaraj vs. The Jt. Manager, (PortOperations) FCI & anr.(ii)1987 SC 2291 - (K.Madhavan vs. SUO.I. & anr.)(iii)2000 SC 594 - (S.I.Rooplal & anr. vs. Lt.Governor Thro' ChiefSecy. Delhi & ors)(iv)2008 (1) SCC 400 - (Attar Singh Kaushik vs. Secy. - Commr.Transport Dept. & anr.)and submitted that petitioners whether retired or in service areentitled for seniority, notional promotion and monetary benefits fromthe date on which their juniors were promoted in the ForestDepartments, as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated5.1.1998 and denial of the same on the face of it , is unsustainablein law. Therefore, all the writ petitions are deserve to be allowedaccording to the learned counsel for the petitioners.29. Mr.K.Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader(Forest) has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated7.9.2006 in W.P.No.43975 of 2002 batch etc., wherein the promotion tothe post of Assistant Conservator of Forest from Forest Ranger cameup for consideration, this Court held that ignoring the service Rulesand ignoring the qualification required for the post, only basing onthe pay drawn by him in the TANTEA Department wherein the concerned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner had worked on deputation, he has been given appointment inthe post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Therefore, grantingsuch seniority prior to the date on which he was appointed as anAssistant Conservator of Forest will result in total violation of therules apart from making a mockery of the whole purport and intent ofthe Rules. Ultimately, this Court held that as per G.O.Ms.No.128,Environment and Forests (FR.2) Department, dated 4.8.2005, noadditional posts have been sanctioned to accommodate the erstwhileCinchona department staff and therefore the reasons stated by theTribunal are on a total misconception of fact. It has been furtherheld by this Court that even on absorption, one cannot claimseniority either prior to the date on which he was holding the postor prior to the category allotted, which has been prescribed in theRules. Ultimately, this Court has allowed all the writ petitions. 30. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, theabove said order squarely applicable to the facts of this case also.It is further submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleaderthat for promotion to the post of Forester, one of the conditionsprescribed is that they shall be deputed for training to Tamil NaduForestry Training College and since the petitioners had lacked thatqualification, their claim cannot be considered. It is furthersubmitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that orderspassed by the Tribunal and the orders passed by this Court in respectof writ petition filed by A.Dharamarj and the contempt applicationfiled by him had been given effect and therefore prays for dismissalof all the writ petitions. 31. We have carefully considered the submissions made byThiru.V.Chockalingham, learned counsel appearing for the petitionersand Mr.K.Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader (Forest).32. The Tribunal in its common order dated 29.11.2001 inO.A.No.1423 and 8271 of 1998 had held that the petitioners wereabsorbed in an equal cadre and hence they cannot be treated asjuniors to the persons already serving in the absorbed cadre whichmeans, the petitioners cannot be treated as juniors to personsserving in the absorbed cadre namely the Forest Department. TheTribunal had also taken note of the two lists namely list of absorbedpersons like the petitioners who were appointed to the post they wereholding just prior to their absorption on different dates and foundthat the dates given in the list showing the date of appointment tothe cadre from which they were absorbed should be taken as the dateof appointment in the new absorbed cadre viz., Selection Grade ForestGuards and Forest Guards and the inter-se-seniority must be fixedtaking into account the dates contained in the lists. The Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further held that the respondents 1 and 2 herein have to fix inter-se-seniority of the petitioners by including the names of thepetitioners in the seniority list mentioned above. Notional promotionshould also be given to the petitioners, after refixation ofseniority list, if juniors have been given promotion. The notionalpromotion should be given from the date on which their immediatejuniors given promotion. But monetary benefits shall be given fromthe date when the petitioners assume charge in the promotion post. 33. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture thatchallenging that portion of the order in which the claim made by thepetitioners for monetary benefits was negatived, they filedW.P.No.18985 of 2003. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have notchosen to challenge the vires of the common order dated 29.11.2001 inO.A.Nos. 1423 and 8271 of 1998. 34. Therefore, the said order being an inter party one, even forthe sake of argument is erroneous, will bind the respondents 1 and 2.35. One of the petitioners in W.P.No.18985 of 2003 namelyA.Dharmaraj has filed W.P.No.27907 of 2004 on the file of this Courtpraying for appropriate direction directing the respondents 1 and 2herein to grant promotion to him in the post of Forester incompliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1423 of1998 dated 29.11.2001. This Court vide final order dated 8.10.2004,had directed the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the orders of theTribunal within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copyof the orders. A.Dharmaraj, complaining about the non-compliance ofthe said order, has filed a contempt application in Contempt PetitionNo.367 of 2005, wherein this Court has closed the said petition bypassing an order dated 3.4.2006. The Court at the time of closingthe contempt petition, has recorded submissions made by the learnedAdditional Advocate General that A.Dharmaraj was given promotion witheffect from 2001 by an order dated 28.3.2006 and in so far as themonetary benefits are concerned, necessary orders will be passedwithin a period of two weeks. 36. Thereafter, the second respondent herein has issued aproceedings dated 17.4.2006, wherein one of the petitioners namelyA.Dharmaraj was given monetary benefits for notional promotion asForester from 7.2.2003 as the date of joining of Thiru.M.Kuppusamy,Forester, who is immediately junior to A.Dharmaraj. 37. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Forest) has alsoplaced reliance upon the common orders dated 4.2.2003 in W.P.No.22900of 2001 batch etc. In the said writ petitions the question thatarose for consideration was as to whether the petitioners therein who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ joined the services of erstwhile Cinchona department and reached thestage of Assistant Superintendent in that department, were entitledto be equated to the post of the Forest Ranger after their absorptionin the Forest Department, consequent upon the winding up of CinchonaDepartment on and after 1.4.1990. The Division Bench which disposedof the said writ petitions, had taken note of the fact of Clause 5 ofsuch codified regulations deals with promotion of a Forester to thepost of 'Ranger' in the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service, whichprescribed among other things, training should be undergone by thepersons for a period of at least one year in a Forest Ranger Collegebefore appointment as Ranger and ultimately held that though the saidrules are mandatory in nature and any violation of the said ruleswill make a mockery of the whole purport and intent of the Ruleswhich stipulates satisfactory compliance of necessary stipulations.The said order though held that Rule 5 is mandatory, may not beapplicable to the facts of this case for the reason that the commonorders dated 29.11.2001 in O.A.No.1423 and 8271 of 1998 had becomefinal in so far as the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 areconcerned as being judgment inter party. The respondents 1 and 2have not chosen to challenge the legality/vires of the said order.The Tribunal in the said order has held that petitioners who wereabsorbed in equal cadre cannot be treated as juniors to the personsalready serving in the absorbed cadre. The Tribunal also directedthe respondents 1 and 2 herein to fix inter-se-seniority of thepetitioners by including the names of the petitioners in theseniority list mentioned in the above said two lists and notionalpromotions also be given to them after refixing of seniority ifjuniors have been given promotion and such notional promotion shouldbe given to them from the date on which their immediate juniors weregiven promotion. The Tribunal, however, clarified that monetarybenefits should be given to them only from the date on which theyassume charge in the promotion post. Therefore, in the teeth of thesaid orders, it is not open to the respondents 1 and 2 to contendotherwise. The facts of this case would also disclose that all thepetitioners had completed Forest Guard Training at Vaigai Dam from1.7.1997 to 31.12.1997. 38. It is a settled position of law that even if erroneous, aninter party judgment binds the party if the Court of competentjurisdiction has decided the lis. It is useful to refer the judgmentreported in (1997)2 SCC 552 - Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and anothervs. Thandrothu Bodemma and 2008(2) Supreme Tody 638 - Government ofGoa vs. A.H.Jaffar and sons ands another.39. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the secondrespondent vide his proceedings dated 28.3.2006 had given notionalpromotion to Thiru. A.Dharmaraj as Forester in the panel for the year https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2000-2001 fixing the seniority below Thiru.P.Shanmugam - date ofappointment 15.1 1979, Thiru.M.Kuppusamy - date of appointment28.8.1980. Therefore, in all fairness the respondents 1 and 2 oughtto have extended the similar benefits to the petitioners as they aresimilarly placed that of A.Dharmaraj, who is one of the petitionersherein. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Forest) hasproduced a statement dated 30.06.2008 showing the details of notionalpromotion to be given to the petitioners herein duly following themethod adopted to second petitioner A.Dharmaraj. Therefore,W.P.No.18985 of 2003 is partly allowed and the respondents 1 and 2are directed to give notional promotion to the petitioners 1,2 and 4as Forester and fix their seniority below and above their seniors andjuniors respectively similar to that of proceedings No.A31/6328/2004dated 28.3.2006 passed by the second respondent in respect of thesecond petitioner namely A.Dharmaraj and also in terms of the abovesaid statement dated 30.06.2008. 40. In so far as the third petitioner P.T.Stephen is concerned,it is represented that he is still in service. Therefore, therespondents 1 and 2 in terms of above said statement dated 30.6.2008showing the details of notional promotion to the petitioners, aredirected to give effect to the said list as expeditiously as possibleand preferably within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order from the Registry of this Court.Similar exercise is also to be done in respect of the petitioners inW.P.No.18985 of 2003, W.P.No.30008 of 2006 and 12523 of 2007, withinthe above said stipulated time frame. 41. It is made clear that the petitioners are not eligible forany financial benefits for the notional promotion given to them. Butit can be counted for pensionary and other benefits. 42. W.P.No.18985 of 2003 is partly allowed and in terms of theorders passed in the said writ petition, W.P.No.30008 of 2006 and12523 of 2007 are disposed of accordingly. But in the circumstances,there will be no order as to costs. 43. The Court place it on record, the fairness in which thecases were argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerMr.V.Chockalingam and Mr.K.Rajasekar, learned Additional GovernmentPleader (Forest) and also the valuable assistance rendered byThiru.K.Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader(Forest) inproviding a detailed chart which enabled this Court to dispose ofthese writ petitions. Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gr.To1.Secretary to Government,(Environment & Forest),Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Buildings,Chennai - 600 015.+1 cc to Mr.V.Chokalingham, Advocate, SR.No.375341 cc To The Spl. Government Pleader, SR.37703 PRE DELIVERY ORDSER IN W.P.Nos.18985 of 2003, 30008 of 2006 and 12523 of 2007SSN (CO)SMK/06.8.08