The writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent dated 6.12.2007. Based on a direction of this Court, the second respondent considered the claim of the petitioner dated 13.12.1999 and informed that he was not included in the regular time sale of pay in the cadre of Plot Watcher/Forest Watcher on the ground that the petitioner has not continuously worked from 1981 to 1998 as Forest Watcher without any break.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Plot Watcher on 1.7.1981 on a consolidated pay by the second respondent and he passed up to IX Standard and it is his case that he is working in the said post for the past 26 years and many number of persons appointed along with him were brought under the regular time scale, which has been denied to the petitioner.
2(a). It is stated that the petitioner has made several representations and lastly on 5.6.1999 for bringing him under the time scale of pay and the Forest Ranger recommended his name stating that the petitioner has been working in the north range from April, 1999 till the said date. It appears that the first respondent has sought for certain clarifications regarding missing pay slips for the period from 1981 to 1988 in order to include the petitioners name in the State wide seniority list for time scale appointment and the Forest Ranger, in turn, has furnished the particulars.
2(b). It is stated that though the Forest Ranger furnished the particulars on 20.9.2006, there was no progress. The petitioner has also quoted that the persons who were appointed in Vellore Region as Forest Guards were regularized by the Government in the order dated 11.6.1992 and subsequently by another order dated 26.11.1999, further regularization was made. The petitioner has been paid the salary of Rs.850/- per month as consolidated pay and for regularization, he filed W.P.No.23979 of 2007 and this Court by order dated 16.7.2007 directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. It was thereafter the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner as stated above.
3. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds including that the petitioner has been continuously working for the past 26 years. The petitioner has also stated that in respect of pay slips for the months from 7/81 to 5/91 and 7/98 which are stated to be not available with the respondents, they are in fact available and the petitioner has also filed the same in the typed set of papers. Since the petitioner is working from 1981 onwards, he should have been included 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 Department dated 28.2.2006, issued directions to regularize the services of daily wages employees and that has not been taken note of. It is also stated that in respect of various persons working in the same department regularization was effected, but it has been denied to the petitioner.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is mainly stated that the pay slips in respect of the petitioner for the period from 7/81 to 12/81, 1/82 to 12/82, 1/83 to 12/83, 1/84 to 9/84, 7/86 to 10/86, 4/91 to 5/91 and 7/98 were not available in the Office. After the High Court has directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. It is denied that the petitioner has worked continuously as a Plot Watcher from 1.7.1981. It is stated that the petitioners name was forwarded by the second respondent to the Conservator of Forests, Salem Circle on 18.6.1993 to appoint him as a Mali, since the petitioner is not having the required qualification of chest measurement for the post of Forest Watcher. It was, in those circumstances, the first respondent called for particulars in respect of the petitioner in his letter dated 17.5.1999, so as to include him in the consolidated list and the petitioners name was forwarded to the Conservator of Forests, Salem Circle on 10.4.2000 and also forwarded to the first respondent. Since the petitioner cannot be included in the consolidated seniority list, if he has not worked continuously as a Plot Watcher, particulars were called for.
5. It is stated that the Ranger Shervaroys North Range has furnished the details on 27.11.2004 to the second respondent but, the particulars were not complete since the details in respect of July, 1982 to August, 1984, March, July, August of 1985, July, August and September, 1986, May, 1985, March and June, 1989, July, 1991, February to November, 1995, January to March 1996, July to October 1998, March, 1999, February, 2001 and March, September,2002 were missing. Therefore, a letter was sent by the second respondent on 16.02.2005 to the Forest Ranger, SHervaroys North Range and the details were received on 28.6.2005.
6. It is stated that some of the vouchers found in the cash books indicate the names of persons actually engaged and the wages paid to them and it was found that the petitioner tampered the records and produced the Xerox copy of the manipulated records as if the petitioner was working during the above said period. The particulars of those vouchers given in the counter affidavit are as follows:
Dates 10.7.81 Voucher No.24 Dates 10.7.81 Voucher No.25 Dates 10.7.81 Voucher No.26 Dates 14.8.81 Voucher No.18 Dates 7.2.81 Voucher No.15 Dates 1.8.83 Voucher No.4 In these circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to be included in the State wide seniority list.
7. A reading of the impugned order shows that the reason for which the petitioners name was not included in the State wide seniority list of either Forest Ranger or Mali is that the documents relating to the payments made to the petitioner were not available with the respondents who are expected to maintain the same. A new stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner produced the vouchers by tampering with the original vouchers and therefore, they are not reliable. In my considered view, the respondents should have taken proper steps to see that the records which are expected to be maintained by the second respondent were properly 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 been continuously working for 26 years as Plot Watcher and in such a case, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be included in the State wide seniority list for Plot Watcher/Forest Watcher/Mali may depend upon his physical qualifications that may be required for the said post, but, that cannot be a ground to deny such a right which is available to him, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to, since it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981.
9. It is also relevant to note which is not in dispute that the Government has passed various Government Orders including G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006 for the purpose of regularizing the consolidated and daily wages employees who have been continuously working for many years. In fact, even in respect of Plot Watchers, the Government has now passed G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forest Department, dated 7.8.2009 for the purpose of bringing those Plot Watchers under the regular time scale of pay subject to various conditions stated therein and that is applicable for various posts like Plot Watchers/Mali/Office Assistants, etc. In such view of the matter, when the reason given in the impugned order does not disclose anything about the so called manipulation which is stated in the counter affidavit, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner should be denied the right of being included in the State wide seniority list of Forest Watcher/Mali depending upon his required physical qualifications. In any event, such right has to be conferred by the respondents based on the proper appreciation of records.
10. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. While considering so, it is open to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents which are in his possession to prove that he has been in continuous employment ever since his date of employment in 1981 till date and if such documents are found to be pay slips, it is for the second respondent to verify the same in the light of the registers maintained by the respondents regarding service particulars of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that while passing such order, it is for the second respondent to decide as to whether the name of petitioner has to be included in the State wide seniority list of either Forest Watchers/Mali depending upon the eligibility of the petitioner, based on his physical conditions. While doing so, the second respondent shall take note of various Government Orders regarding regularization of services of consolidated pay employees including G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.95 Environment and Forests (V2) Department dated 7.8.2009. Such exercise shall be done by the respondents expeditiously and in proper manner. It is made clear that on receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall make a proper representation to the second respondents along with the records which the petitioner desires to rely upon within two weeks and thereafter, the second respondent shall pass orders as stated above within a period of eight weeks after verifying with the records and giving opportunity to the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
kh To
1.The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building Chennai 15.
2.The District Forest Officer Salem Division, Salem