WP/29918/2023 of R.KARUPPAMMAL Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU on 16 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.06.2023, by which the petitioner's request for granting pension for her husband was rejected by quoting the writ appeal in W.A.No.158 of 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband was appointed as Plot Watcher on 01.04.1984 and he was appointed as regular Forest Watcher on 08.12.2010. The learned counsel submits that since his juniors were considered as regular Watcher as early as 24.01.1995, they filed a writ petition in WP.No.4026 of 2018. In which, this Court by order dated 02.03.2018 has directed the respondent to regularise the petitioners therein which includes the petitioner's husband with effect from 24.01.1995. In pursuance thereof, the respondent had passed G.O.(Ms).No.8 dated 21.01.2019 regularising many persons with effect from 02.02.1995. In which the petitioner’s husband’s name find a place in Sl.No.21 in Annexure-II.

2. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was regularised prior to the implementation of the Contributory Pension Scheme, he is entitled to have a pension whereas the respondents denied the pension by referring W.A.No.158 of 2016 dated 03.12.2019. According to the petitioner, the above W.A is no way related to the factual position of this case. Furthermore, this being a case, the respondent was directed to regularise with effect from 02.02.1995 by the order of this Court. Therefore, the rejection for pension is patently illegal. Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Per contra, the said contention was totally objected by learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and submitted that the request of the petitioner to count 50% of service rendered by petitioner’s husband on daily wages as Plot Watcher from 01.04.1984 to 01.02.1995 along with the regular service as Forest Watcher from 02.02.1995 till the date of retirement on 28.02.2022 as a qualifying service has not been complied with since the petitioner's husband was brought into regular service on 08.12.2010. It is also the submission of the learned Government Advocate that petitioner is not entitled to the relief in view of the order passed in W.A.No.158 of 2016. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. While looking into the judgment passed in W.A.No.158 of 2016, it is not related to the Forest Service. It relates to counting 50% of the past service before their regularisation period. Whereas in this case, the petitioner’s husband’s appointment was regularised on 02-02-1995. Therefore, he is deemed to have appointed on 02-02-1995, which factum has been clearly elicited in G.O.(Ms).No.8, dated 21-01-2019. However the respondent did not consider the G.O.(Ms).No.8 dated 21-01-2019.

6. It is also relevant to mention that in pursuance of G.O.(Ms).No.8, the respondent department has issued certain direction to refix the pay of this petitioner’s husband along with other 82 persons from the date of their regularisation. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the order in G.O.(Ms).No.8, one K.Verumandi, who is in Sl.No.34 was granted pension vide pension order dated 13-06-2019 in Reference No.P21/12121649/3/PPO No.R2121649. From the perusal of the above G.O, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner’s husband was regularised with effect from 02-02-1995, which is nothing but he is deemed to have been appointed in service since 02-02-1995, qua prior to the implementation of the contributory pension scheme.

7. Therefore, this court is of the firm view that the rejection order dated 06-06-2023 is liable to be set aside, and as a consequence, the petitioner is entitled to have a pension.

8. Thus, in view of the above detailed discussion, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to send the pension proposal of the petitioner’s husband to 4th respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the fourth respondent is directed to grant pension by taking into consideration of his regularisation dated 02-02-1995 as his date of joining in pensionable service and pay all arrears and pension to the petitioner within a further period of eight weeks. If this order is not complied with, within the above period, the petitioner is entitled for default interest at the rate of 6 % per annum.

9. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR To

1. The Secretary To Government Environment And Forest Department, Fort St George Chennai 9

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Panagal Building, Saidpaet, Chennai 15

3. The District Forest Officer Tirunelveli Forest Division, Tirunelveli District

4. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu Teynampet Chennai 18

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 29918 of 2023 and WMP.No.29532 of 2023 16-09-2026