(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his Letter No.e-file/3683597/Forest 3(1)/2022-6 dated 19.05.2025 and consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.S2/61372/2019 dated 06.06.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.e-file/3683597/Forest 3(1)/2022-6, dated 19.05.2025 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.S2/61372/2019 dated 06.06.2025 and to direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father died on 05.12.2014, while he was working as a Plot Watcher in the third respondent Range. A request for compassionate appointment was made on 28.01.2015. Under the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.08.2009, the Department had decided to consider the compassionate appointment of the legal heirs of the deceased Plot Watchers regularized and hence, by communication, dated 11.06.2018, applications were directed to be submitted in that regard. As no reply was envisaged, the petitioner's mother had made a representation again to the CM Cell and by reply, dated 19.02.2020, reply was sent to the petitioner's mother stating that a proposal had been submitted to the second respondent through the Conservator of Forests, Virudhunagar, on 09.11.2018. However, under the impugned communication, the application of the petitioner was rejected by holding that the petitioner's father had been working under the time scale of pay and therefore, he is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention had placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.6383 of 2025 (R.Rajkumar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Chennai and others), dated 26.03.2025, which had considered the earlier judgments of this Court and had set aside the similar orders passed in respect of another applicant with a direction to provide compassionate appointment within the time frame. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case also, the order impugned herein should be set aside and the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

4. Countering his arguments, Mrs.P.B.Ahamad Yashmin Parvin, learned Government Advocate for the respondents, placing reliance upon the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, would submit that the petitioner's father was not regularly appointed to the post of Plot Watcher and only based upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.08.2009, he had been appointed as a Plot Watcher, considering his service and was regularized in a Supernumerary Plot Watcher post that had been created under the said Government Order.

5. Compassionate Appointment Rules have been formulated for granting compassionate appointment to the family members of the deceased Government servant, who has also been defined as a person, who has been appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of the State and excludes the category of persons, which includes a person, who has not been placed under regular time scale of pay and the persons appointed on special time scale of pay. Since the petitioner's father had been appointed as a Supernumerary Plot Watcher under special time scale of pay, the petitioner is not entitled to be given compassionate appointment. Therefore, she prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. Apart from that, she had also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.831 of 2020, dated 26.02.2012 as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Civil Appeal No.977 of 2019, in support of her submissions.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

8. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner had died in harness. From a perusal of the facts in the aforesaid case, it is seen that the petitioner's father therein has been regularized based upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.08.2009.

9. The learned single Judge of this Court, after analyzing the entire issue, had placed reliance upon the judgment of another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19615 of 2012 (K.Udayakumar Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015), wherein, the learned single Judge had considered various judgments and finally held that the petitioner therein was eligible for grant of compassionate appointment.

10. This Court is of the considered view that the said judgment would also squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

11. In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.e-file/3683597/Forest 3(1)/2022-6, dated 19.05.2025 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.S2/61372/2019 dated 06.06.2025 are hereby set aside. The first respondent is directed to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.