1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No. 9124 of 2011 C.Badrasamy @ Bathrasamy-C ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Additional Principal Chief conservator of Forests, (Forest Administration), O/o. Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Mu.Mu. No. A2/11604/10, dated 24.4.2010 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to award Selection Grade in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest from the date of his juniors were awarded with the Selection Grade and to fix the pay and allowances on par with his juniors and pass other or further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr. V.Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests(Forest Administration) in his proceedings No. A2/48695/2008 wherein the petitioner was held to be eligible for Selection Grade in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests from 23.8.2006 onwards with further direction that he is eligible for pay and allowances only from that day onwards. The crux of the matter raised in the present Writ Petition is that after the petitioner joined the post of Forest Ranger on 1.11.1980, he was awarded with Selection Grade in the post of Ranger on 1.11.19990 and also awarded with Special Grade in the post of Ranger on 1.11.2000. Subsequently, departmental proceedings were initiated under Rules 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service Discipline and Appeal Rules on 5.4.1997. As the disciplinary proceedings were not taken up for disposal and due to the pendency of 17(b) charges for a long time, the petitioner was constrained to file an original application before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4631 of 1999. The Tribunal, by its order dated 5.6.2000, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge memo dated 5.4.1997, gave one year time to the respondent to complete the enquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. In the meanwhile, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer that the charge Nos.1 and 3 were not found established. However, in respect of Charge No.2 since the Enquiry Officer had found the same as partly proved, due to the intervention the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 28418 of 2004 dated 4.10.2004 giving direction to the disciplinary authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass final order, by G.O.3D, No.65 Environment Forest Department dated 9.11.2004, the respondents dropped the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation dated 30.5.2005 requesting the Secretary to Government to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to help him in getting his promotion on time along with his juniors, who have been promoted before the petitioner due to the pendency of 17(b) charges. Since the said representation was also not considered, the petitioner once again came to this Court to file W.P. No. 16296 of 2005 with a limited prayer to issue a direction and dispose of the representation dated 15.11.2005. Accepting the limited prayer, this Court, by its order dated 11.5.2005, issued a direction against the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.11.2004 on its merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 3. Thereafter, the Secretary to Government Environment Forest issued a G.O. No.D-187 dated 7.8.2006 stating that consequent on inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel of Rangers fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests, by transfer for the year 2000-2001 promoted the petitioner as Assistant Conservator of Forests and subsequent to the same order, the petitioner was also posted as Forestry Extension Officer, Arasanur, Madurai. 4. Under these circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Government after dropping 17 (b) charges on 9.11.2004 that too issued G.O.D-187 dated 7.8.2006 saying that the petitioner's name was included in the panel of Rangers fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests by transfer for the year 2000-2001 under the G.O.(D)No.48, Environment and Forests (FR.1) Department dated 23.2.2006, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Selection Grade pay fixation and allowances on par with his juniors. 5. Opposing the said argument, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of Rule 27(11) of Tamil Nadu Forest Service Rules. He has contended that as per the Rule 27(11) of Tamil Nadu Forest Service Rules, a Government servant, whose name has been overlooked for promotion/appointment to the next higher post, but subsequently promoted/appointed to that higher post after restoration of his original seniority on appeal, his pay shall be fixed on the date of assumption of charge in the higher post on par with his juniors provided that he has drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post from time to time. If he has not drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post, his pay shall be fixed on the date of assumption of charge, at the stage at which he would have drawn on that day and he has been promoted/appointed to the higher post along with his junior. 6. But the said Rule cannot be pressed into service against the petitioner. The reason being though the petitioner was issued with charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 5.4.1997, later on, the Government thought fit to drop the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.2 though the charges 1 and 3 stood unproved. When the Government finally dropped the charges by order dated 9.11.2004, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests by G.O. D-187 Environment Forest FRI Department dated 7.8.2006 subsequently, mentioning that consequent on inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel of Rangers fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests, by transfer for the year 2000-2001, he has been promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest. This goes to show that when the petitioner's name having been included in the panel of Rangers fit for Assistant Conservator of Forest for the year 2000-2001 and his juniors were also promoted, he cannot be denied his eligible pay and allowances from the date on which the petitioner's juniors were promoted. It appears that his request was also considered by the respondents by placing him above Mr.C.Sreerangaram as Sl.No.7(a) in G.O.(D).No.48, dated 23.02.2006 and he was also issued with posting order in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that he is not asking arrears of pay from 2000 till he was posted as Assistant Conservator of Forest by G.O.D-187 dated 7.8.2006. That statement has been recorded. However, since his juniors were already promoted much prior to G.O. No. 187 dated 7.8.2006, and in view of the fact that the Government has dropped the charges by G.O. No.3D No.65, Environment Forest Department dated 9.11.2004, I do not find any impediment to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on par with his juniors in respect of Selection Grade in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Since G.O.Ms. No.D-92, Environment Forest, dated 21.6.2005, permitted the petitioner's junior Mr.C.Sreerangarama as Assistant Conservator of Forest, the petitioner is also eligible to be treated on par with his junior Mr.C.Sreerangaram. However, the arrears of pay and other allowances from 21.6.2005 till 7.8.2006 need not be paid to the petitioner. But awarding the Selection Grade in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest from the date of his juniors will be taken into account only for pensionary benefits. 8.With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Additional Principal Chief conservator of Forests, (Forest Administration), O/o. Panagal Maligai,Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.43248 W.P.(MD)No. 9124 of 2011 9.12.2011 ses/RJ/18.1.12 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/