(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2022, dated 29.10.2024 passed by this Court.)
C.V. Karthikeyan, J.
1. The Writ Appeal had been filed by the respondents in W.P.(MD)No. 2496 of 2022, aggrieved by that portion of the order of a learned Single Judge, dated 29.10.2024, wherein, the learned Single Judge had directed the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent as Anti-Poaching Watcher in the special time scale of pay and to grant consequential benefits.
2. The respondent herein had filed the said Writ Petition in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to an order passed by the second appellant herein in proceedings, dated 21.10.2021 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the appellants herein to regularise the service of the respondent as Anti-Poaching Watcher in special time scale of pay by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.116, Environment and Forest Department, dated 25.09.2014 and to grant all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent had been appointed as Anti-Poaching Watcher on 01.04.2000 and posted at Papanasam Forest Range, Kalakkadu- Mundanthurai (KMTR) Tiger Reserve Forest, Ambasamudram. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.76, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.06.2010 appointing 137 Anti-Poaching Watchers on time scale of pay by creating supernumerary posts for those who had completed ten years of service and whose service had been regularised with effect from 07.08.2009. The respondent had completed ten years of service on 31.03.2010, but his claim was not considered. Subsequently, the Government had also issued G.O.Ms.No.116, Environment and Forest Department, dated 25.09.2014, extending the benefit of ten years of service for those who completed ten years of service as on 31.12.2010.
4. The respondent sought regularisation of service, since he had completed ten years of service. He then sought information through Right Information Act, in which, it had been replied that he had completed ten years of service on 31.03.2010 and that he was Sl.No.145 in the seniority.
5. It was the contention of the respondent that 134 Anti-Poaching Watchers including him filed W.P.Nos.10654 and 9764 of 2014 seeking to regularise their services in the post of Anti-Poaching Watcher in special time scale of pay by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.116, referred supra.
6. The order passed in an earlier Writ Petition directing the Government to take a policy decision to amend the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, to make Anti-Poaching Watchers working as against the supernumerary posts eligible for recruitment as Forest Watcher had been put to challenge in W.A.Nos.354 and 355 of 2016. A Division Bench by an order, dated 05.04.2018 had directed that those persons who had completed ten years of service excluding the break-in-service should be considered at regular intervals for recruitment as Forest Watcher.
7. It is the case of the appellants that the claim of the respondent that he had completed ten years of service as on 31.03.2010 was not correct, since there was a two years and two months break-in-service, which details are as follows:
| Break in Service | Year | Month | Day |
| 01.06.2000 to 31.07.2000 | - | 2 | - |
| 01.09.2000 to 30.09.2000 | - | 1 | - |
| 01.11.2000 to 30.11.2000 | - | 1 | - |
| 01.01.2001 to 31.01.2001 | - | 1 | - |
| 01.03.2001 to 31.03.2001 | - | 1 | - |
| 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2001 | - | 3 | - |
| 01.11.2001 to 31.03.2003 | 1 | 5 | - |
| Tota | 2 | 2 | - |
9. The fact that the respondent suffered break-in-service has not been denied or disputed. But, however, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the said break-in-service should not be taken into consideration, particularly, in view of the reply given under the Right to Information Act that the respondent had completed ten years of service as on 31.03.2010
10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
11. The respondent was appointed as Anti-Poaching Watcher on 01.04.2000. Subsequently, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.76, Forest and Environment Department, dated 07.06.2010, appointing 137 Anti-Poaching Watchers on time scale of pay by creating supernumerary posts for those who had completed ten years of service and those service had been regularised with effect from 07.08.2009. Subsequently, the Government had issued another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.116, Environment and Forest Department, dated 25.09.2014, extending the benefit of regularising the services of those who completed ten years of service as on 31.12.2010.
12. The respondent was appointed on 01.04.2000 and completed ten years of service on 31.03.2010. However, it is also to be noted that there were break-in-service for a period of two years and two months and the appellants had also given the details thereof. The Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.Nos.354 and 355 of 2016, by order, dated 05.04.2018, had very specifically stated as follows:
“13.In that view of the matter, instead of keeping the matter pending over the months, we take a decision that as per the undertaking to the effect that in the case of those remaining either already approached or not approached the court, their cases shall be considered uniformly at regular intervals. Further, as and when such persons, who have completed the 10 years of service excluding the break-in-service, as per the direction issued by this Court, shall make a calculation on their own and shall furnish their particulars as to the date of joining of service, break in service to be included or excluded and the actual date of completion of 10 years etc. to the Department. On furnishing of such particulars, the same shall be verified by the department after getting necessary clarifications from the individual, if required and on subject to satisfaction by the department, their cases shall be considered at regular intervals."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. It is thus seen that the Division Bench had very categorically stated that the break-in-service period should be excluded while calculating the ten years of service. Further, this was held on the basis of the undertaking given, which had also been mentioned in the extract supra.
14. The respondent, therefore, cannot claim that the break-in-service period should be overlooked and should be included while calculating the ten years period of service. The respondent had completed ten years period of service only on 31.05.2012. This Court can never extend the benefit granted either under G.O.Ms.No.76 or G.O.Ms.No.116, referred supra, as that would only open the flood gates multiplicity of litigations. Further, the post, which had been created for Forest Watcher were only supernumerary posts and when sanctioned posts are approved, the supernumerary posts would automatically fade away.
15. The direction of the learned Single Judge that the respondent should be extended with the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.116 and that he should be brought into regular service on 31.05.2012 necessarily has to be interfered with. He had completed his ten years of service on 31.05.2012, but that would not mean that he should be automatically either regulariszed or promoted as Forest Watcher. The Court can never thrust its views on a policy decision of the Government. It is also to be noted that the respondent had actually been promoted as Forest Watcher in the year 2023 and is working in Mundanthurai Range-Padharmalai Beat.
16. In view of the above reasons, result, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The order passed in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2022, dated 29.10.2024 is set aside. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.