WA/1064/2024 of THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS Vs P.DEIVEEGAN on 18 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The unsuccessful respondents are the appellants before this Court.

2. For the sake of clarity, the appellants herein are referred to as "respondents" and the respondent herein is referred to as "writ petitioner".

3. Writ petitioner approached this Court for the relief of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 10.12.2014 confirming the order dated 21.07.2014 and to direct the respondents to grant monetary benefit from the date of original appointment as Forest Watcher with all consequential benefits.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was engaged as a Plot Watcher/Social Forestry Worker on 01.11.1983 in the Forest Department on a daily wage basis. He worked in the Forest Department till 06.09.1989 as a daily wage worker. Thereafter, he was transferred to and worked in the Rural Development Department pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.592, dated 16.08.1989. Even though he was sent to the Rural Development Department, his seniority was maintained in the Forest Department, and in 1994, his name was included at Sl.No.2190 in the State-wide seniority list. The Government subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.322, Environment and Forest Department, dated 22.12.1994, to bring all daily wage workers into the regular time scale of pay in the post of Forest Watcher. The condition imposed in the said G.O. was passing the SSLC qualification. The petitioner was brought into the regular time scale of pay on 23.01.1995 by proceedings of the Conservator of Forests. However, the petitioner could not join the regular post due to pending litigation questioning G.O.Ms.No.322, dated 22.12.1994. Some persons similarly placed as the petitioner joined as Forest Watchers before the litigation regarding G.O.Ms.No.322 commenced. Pending litigation, the Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.64 and 65, Environment and Forest Department, dated 08.03.1999, relaxing the educational qualification from passing SSLC to the "ability to read and write." G.O.Ms.No.65 specifically provided that persons transferred to the Rural Development Department should also be included in the seniority list. Pursuant to the above G.O., the petitioner's name was included in the seniority list at Sl.No.2190 in the year 1989.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that some persons who were not granted the regular time scale of pay approached this Court by way of a Writ of Mandamus and succeeded in litigation, with which the Government complied. The petitioner also claimed entitlement to monetary benefits from the date of his original appointment. However, his request was rejected. The impugned order was passed on 10.12.2014, confirming the order dated 21.07.2014, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to monetary benefits because he had rendered only 4 years of service as a daily wage worker from 1983 to 1987, and thus could not be equated with others who had rendered over 30 years of service. The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that no opportunity of being heard was granted to him and that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as the original order was issued by the Government.

6. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents through a detailed counter-affidavit. In their counter, the respondents submitted that daily wage workers without the prescribed qualifications had obtained benefits, but the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.65 and G.O.Ms.No.322, as they were inapplicable to him.

7. The respondents further submitted that the writ petitioner was engaged as a Social Forestry Worker / Plot Watcher for only 4 years (from 1983 to 1987) and was not engaged by the Forest Department after 1987, rendering him ineligible for monetary benefits. Consequently, he is not entitled to retrospective regularisation from 1995. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests cancelled the pay benefits on the ground that since he worked as a Plot Watcher only from 1983 to 1987, he could not seek a regular post on par with persons who rendered over 30 years of service. The respondents maintained that the impugned order is well-reasoned and does not warrant interference.

8. On the basis of the above submissions, the Writ Court, vide order dated 27.04.2021, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 10.12.2014. The Writ Court concluded that the prerequisite of 10 years of continuous service had already been considered by this Court when granting relief to similarly placed persons. Aggrieved by this decision, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

9. Heard the Special Government Pleader for the appellants and perused the materials on record. There is no representation for the respondent in spite of service.

10. There is no dispute that the petitioner served in the Forest Department as a Plot Watcher/Social Forestry Worker for only 4 years, from 1983 to 1987. G.O.Ms.No.322, dated 22.12.1994, was issued relaxing the qualification in exercise of Rule 3(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service relating to the mode of recruitment for Office Assistants and Watchmen. Similarly, under G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 08.03.1999, Social Forestry Workers and Plot Watchers enlisted in the State-wide seniority list who could read and write were eligible for appointment as Forest Watchers and Malis in existing and future vacancies by relaxing age-related rules. In none of these G.Os was the condition of 10 years of continuous service dispensed with for claiming monetary benefits. The persons who obtained regularisation from the date of appointment and received monetary benefits had all worked continuously for over 30 years as Plot Watchers / Social Forestry Workers. In contrast, the writ petitioner worked for only 4 years in the Forest Department (from 1983 to 1987), was transferred to the Rural Development Department under G.O.Ms.No.592 dated 16.08.1989, and did not work in the Forest Department thereafter. Therefore, he cannot claim parity with those who rendered more than 30 years of service. These aspects were properly considered in the order dated 10.12.2014 confirming the order dated 21.07.2014, which assigned valid reasons as to why the petitioner was not entitled to claim retrospective monetary benefits from 1995. The authority passed the order in accordance with the relevant Rules and G.Os, which was not properly appreciated by the Writ Court. The Writ Court allowed the petition on the ground of parity without noticing the crucial distinguishing factor between 4 years and 30 years of service. The concept of negative equality cannot be applied to grant retrospective monetary benefits from 1995 to a person who worked for only 4 years and left the department in 1987. Furthermore, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is the competent authority to regulate service conditions and cancel irregularly granted monetary benefits. The impugned order is well-reasoned and does not suffer from a lack of jurisdiction.

11. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and another vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2013 (14) SCC

81 wherein the Court has held as follows: ‘’8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/ benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705, M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937).

12. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The order passed in W.P.No.1347 of 2015 dated 27.04.2021 is set aside, and the order dated 10.12.2014 confirming the order dated 21.07.2014 stands restored. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To

1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

2. The District Forest Officer, Attur Forest Division, Salem District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli Pre-delivery judgment in WA No. 1064 of 2024 22-09-2026