IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P. No.39847 of 2006(T) (OA No.8045/1999) R. Gandhi .. Petitioner Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15 .. Respondent Prayer: Original Application No.8045 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to grant direction directing the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for the year 1999-2000 and consequently promote him to the post of Ranger irrespective of the charges issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore in Ref.No.3045/89/A3 dated 16.03.1990, the District Forest Officer, Attur Division, Attur in Charge Sheet No.29/92 dated 28.07.1992 and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai-6 in Proceedings No.A3/79413/92 dated 26.01.1993. For Petitioner .. Mr. R. Singaravelan for Mr. B. Geethanjali Ramu For Respondents .. Mr. S. Sivashanmugam Government Advocate ORDER Original Application No.8045 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to grant direction directing the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for the year 1999-2000 and consequently promote him to the post of Ranger irrespective of the charges issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore in Ref.No.3045/89/A3 dated 16.03.1990, the District Forest Officer, Attur Division, Attur in Charge Sheet No.29/92 dated 28.07.1992 and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai-6 in Proceedings No.A3/79413/92 dated 26.01.1993, since the Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was transferred and numbered as Writ petition. 2. The Original Application was filed in the year 1999 by the 51 years old Forester. His claim for promotion was not considered for long period of time on the ground that a charge memo is pending. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the grievance of the petitioner is that his name should have been included in the panel for the year 1999-2000 as many Juniors of petitioner were considered and promoted. Though petitioner name has also been recommended, his name was omitted by the respondent, in view of the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Chamanlal Goyal case reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 for appropriate relief and the learned counsel prays for a direction to consider the petitioner's representation on merits as and when made. 4. Heard Mr. S. Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate. 5. At this point of time as prayed for, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to make representation to the respondent for redressing his grievance. As and when such representation is made, the respondent shall consider and dispose of the same on merits within three months from the date of such representation. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vga To The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15 +1cc to Mr.R.Singgaravelan, Advocate Sr 13029 +1cc to Spl.Govt. Pleader (Forests) Sr 12807 DM(CO) km/12.3. W.P. No.39847 of 2006(T) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/