IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.6.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.16888 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.2414 of 1996 K.Joseph .. Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Finance (Pension) Department Secretariat, Madras-600 009 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Teynampet Madras-6 3. The Divisional Forest Officer Kovilpatti Social Forestry Division Kovilpatti 4. The Accountant General (A&E) TamilNadu Madras-18 .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Thiruchendhur, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.Pa/6298/94, dated 16.2.1996, and quash the same and direct the respondents to take the service rendered by the applicant from 10.12.1957 to 17.11.1972 into account for the purpose of the pensionary benefits and other benefits and consequently direct the respondents to pay all the pensionary benefits to the applicant with 18% per annum. For petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R It is stated by by the petitioner that he was selected for appointment to the post of Reserve Watcher and he had joined in service, on 10.12.1957. He was promoted to the post of Forest Guard by an order, dated 15.4.1972. Later, he was promoted, temporarily, to the post of Forester, on 2.9.1976. Thereafter, he had been reverted from the said promoted post. However, he was permanently promoted to the post of Forester, on 28.1.1977, which post he had held till he had retied from service, on 30.4.1995. 2. The petitioner had further stated that he had passed S.S.L.C. in the year 1955 itself. Therefore, even on the date of his appointment to the post of Forester he had S.S.L.C. qualification. 3. The petitioner has further stated that his service, from 10.12.1957 till the year 1974, had not been taken into account for calculating his pensionary benefits. As a result, the petitioner has suffered serious monetary loss and hardship. Since his probation in the post of Forest Watcher had been declared to be satisfactory, his entire service in the said post ought to have been taken into account for fixation of his pensionary benefits. Instead, the petitioner's service for the calculation of his pensionary benefits has been counted only from the year 1974. Since the petitioner cannot be said to be a temporary employee or a badi employee, the service rendered by him as a Forest Watcher/Plot Watcher, should have been counted for calculating the monetary benefits accruing to the said post, in accordance with the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.893, dated 22.8.1994. 4. In spite of the representation made by the petitioner to treat him as a permanent employee and to grant him all the pensionary benefits, no reply has been given by the first respondent. Thus, the petitioner has been receiving only half the pension due to him. In spite of the existence of various Government orders, including G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14.2.1996, for counting alteast half of the service of the contingent staff. The said order had not been given effect to in the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2414 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16888 of 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a reserve watcher on 10.12.1957. The petitioner's service as a reserve watcher from 10.12.1957 to 17.4.1972 has not been taken into account for pensionary benefits. As the service of a reserve watcher is covered only under the Forest Temporary establishment, no pension is paid to the reserve watcher as per the rules in force as they form part of the inferior service. Though the petitioner had S.S.L.C. qualification he was appointed only in the post of reserve watcher for which reading and writing in Tamil language was the only qualification. Since the petitioner had opted for the lessor category of the post as compared to the higher qualifications he was possessing at the time of his appointment, he cannot validly claim the pensionary benefits due to other categories of posts. The post of reserve watcher are not forming part of the pensionary service. The reserve watcher post is not covered under the work charged establishment but it is a temporary service on regular appointment. G.O.Ms.No.892, dated 22.8.1994, deals only with the work charged establishment and not to the temporary establishment of the reserve watcher in the Forest Department. 6. It has been further stated that at the time when the proposal for payment of pension to the petitioner was sent to the Accountant General, Chennai, G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14.2.1996, had not been passed. However, in view of the said Government order, the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner would be calculated taking into account half the service rendered by the petitioner in the category of reserve watcher. 7. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to consider the claims made by the petitioner to count 50% of his service rendered as a Forest Watcher, from 10.12.1957 to 17.11.1972, for the purpose of calculation of the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14.2.1996 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a specified period. 8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had no objection for this Court passing such an order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the impugned order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Thiruchendhur, the third respondent, dated 16.2.1996, made in Na.Ka.No.Pa/6298/94, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for payment of the pensionary benefits, as prayed for in the writ petition, in view of G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance (pension) Department, dated 14.2.1996, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. lan Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To: 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Finance (Pension) Department Secretariat, Madras-600 009 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Teynampet, Madras-6 3. The Divisional Forest Officer Kovilpatti Social Forestry Division Kovilpatti 4. The Accountant General (A&E) TamilNadu, Madras-18 1 cc to Mr.R.Singaravelan, Advocate, SR.33915 1 cc to the Special Government Pleader, (Forests), SR.33444 bk (co) dv/15.7. W.P.No.16888 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.2414 of 1996 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/