Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to regularise the period, from 20.5.1997 to 4.11.1997, when the petitioner was kept under 'compulsory wait', and to treat it as period on duty for all purposes, including monetary and other service benefits.
The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows:
3. The petitioner had been promoted, as Forest Range Officer, at Perumpallam Range, Kodaikanal Division, Madurai Circle. He had joined in the said post, on 10.8.1995. By virtue of the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.687, Environment and Forests Department, dated 1.10.1990, the petitioner was entitled to be retained in the same range for a period of three years and within the same circle for a period of six years. While so, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the first respondent to post him in the post of Forest Range Officer, H.P.Act Range, Madurai Circle, as the post was to fall vacant due to the transfer of the Forest Range Officer, who was occupying the said post. Subsequently, the first respondent, by his order, dated 15.9.1997, had transferred the Forest Range Officer, on administrative grounds. Accordingly, the petitioner had been transferred from Perumballam Range, Kodaikanal Division, Madurai Circle, and posted to H.P. Act Range, Kodaikanal. Even though the transfer orders were implemented insofar as the other persons were concerned, the transfer order relating to the petitioner had not been implemented, even though he had been relieved from Perumballam Range on 16.5.1997. Further, the petitioner was not allowed to join duty at H.P.Act Range, Kodaikanal, by the first respondent.
4. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the order transferring the petitioner to H.P.Act Range, Kodaikanal, had not been given effect to. It was also learnt that the order transferring the petitioner had not been given effect to, in order to accommodate some other persons. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an Original Application in O.A.No.3909 of 1997, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying for an order to implement the transfer order, dated 15.5.1997, transferring the petitioner to H.P.Act Range, Kodaikanal. While so, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, by his proceedings, dated 26.5.1997, had transferred the petitioner and posted him on deputation to Arasu Rubber Corporation, Nagercoil.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred O.A.No.3968 of 1997, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 1.7.1997, had granted an order of interim stay of the order of transfer, dated 26.5.1997, passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai. However, no orders had been issued to the petitioner permitting him to work, either in Perumballam Range, Kodaikanal, from which he had been relieved, on 16.5.1997, nor was he permitted to join duty in the H.P.Act Range, Kodaikanal. Later, by an order, dated 10.9.1997, made in O.A.No.3968 of 1997, the Tribunal had set aside the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 26.5.1997 and the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 4.6.1997, transferring one N.Subramaniam to H.P.Act Range. The Tribunal had issued directions to the respondents to pass suitable orders so as to enable the petitioner to continue at Perumballam Range or to join the post at H.P.Act Range, Kodaikanal, within two weeks from the date of the passing of the order. Subsequently, the first respondent had issued orders, dated 3.11.1997, posting the petitioner to H.P.Act Range, Kodaikanal and he had joined duty, on 5.11.1997.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition claiming that the period from 20.5.1997 to 4.11.1997, when he was kept under 'compulsory wait', should be treated as period 'on duty' for all purposes, including monetary and other service benefits.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that in view of the order dated 10.9.1997 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.3968 of 1997, the period from 20.5.1997 to 4.11.1997, should be considered as "on duty" period and all benefits accruing there from should be given to the petitioner, including monetary and other service benefits.
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had not refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, nor has he placed any records to counter the claims made on behalf of the petitioner.
9. Thus, it is not in dispute that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, had passed an order in favour of the Petitioner, in its order, dated 10.9.1997, in O.A.No.3968 of 1997. Accordingly, the period from 20.5.1997 to 4.11.1997, when the petitioner was under compulsory wait, should be treated as "on duty" period and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits due to him for the said period, including the monetary and other service benefits.
In such circumstances the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
lan To
1. Conservator of Forest, Madurai
2. Conservator of Forests, Dindigul.
3. District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal