IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, JJ.
M. Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 1553 of 2019
Decided On : 22-01-2021
Writ appeal - Appellant's father was appointed as Plot Watcher - Appellant's father died and hence, he could not avail the benefit. Hence, appellant submitted representations to the respondents seeking employment on compassionate ground – Held, that if an employee was qualified for regularization as on the date of his death, then the claim of his legal heirs cannot be rejected. In the present case also, the appellant's father was qualified for regularization as on the date of his death since he had worked for more than 28 years. Therefore, the claim of the appellant cannot be rejected - Writ Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBBIAH, J.
1. This matter is heard through Video Conference.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order of this Court dated 21.03.2019 passed in W.P. No. 26729 of 2018, wherein the prayer of appellant herein to direct the respondents to appoint him as Forest Watcher or any other suitable post in the Forest Department of the third respondent division, in order to protect his family livelihood, was rejected.
3. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide this appeal, are as follows:
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant's father's name was included in the State Seniority List in S. No. 1182 as per G.O.Ms. No. 64, Environment and Forest (FR. II) Department dated 08.03.99 for regular appointment as Forest Watcher. As per the said Government Order, persons, who have completed 10 years of service, are eligible for regularization. Appellant's father worked in the Department for more than 28 years without any benefit. Learned counsel further submits that G.O. Ms. No. 95 dated 07.08.2009 has been issued by first respondent regularizing appellant's father's service based on the seniority as Plot Watcher in the regular post under the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules. But, unfortunately, appellant's father died on 25.06.2009 and hence, he could not avail the benefit. Hence, appellant submitted representations to the respondents seeking employment on compassionate ground. However, the learned Single Judge, without considering these aspects, has dismissed the Writ Petition.
5. Countering the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that on the date of the death of appellant's father, his services were not regularized. Since appellant's father died on 25.06.2009 i.e. prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 95 dated 07.08.2009, the said Government Order has no effect in the case of appellant's father.
6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents. Perused the entire materials on record.
7. The issue, similar to the present one, has been decided by this Court in variou
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.