N.Pachaiyappan v. The District Forest Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD N.Pachaiyappan
...Petitioner
-VsThe District Forest Officer, Tiruvannamalai Forest Division, Tiruvannamalai District.
...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to consider the representation dated 28.10.2024 within a stipulated period of time and pass such further orders. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Sunilkumar For Respondent :
Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate 1/5
O R D E R
Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2024 within a stipulated period of time.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he had worked as a Plantation Worker in the forest areas of Arani Social Forest from 1985 to 1996 and again in the Cheyyar Social Forest Range from 1997 to 2008 under the Tiruvannamalai Forest Division. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.168 of 2010 before this Court seeking the appointment as Plantation Worker and the same was allowed with a direction to consider the representation within eight weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted all the necessary documents for his appointment to the respondent's office. Upon review, the petitioner was informed that his appointment could not be processed due to the fact that he was under the Rural Development 2/5
Department. In response, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.21934/2010 and the same was allowed on 08.09.2022 and a direction for appointment was reconsidered under the Forest and Environment Department by following the Government Order No.202.
4. Learned counsel further contended that after receiving a copy of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was instructed to submit his representation within ten days. Accordingly, in December 2022, the petitioner personally visited the respondent's office with all the required documents and submitted his petition for the appointment. At that time, the respondent assured that action would be taken once the original order from the High Court was received. However, till date, no action has been taken on my petition, and the petitioner has not received any communication from the respondent's office. Hence, the writ petition is filed.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered on merits and in accordance with law by the authority concerned. 3/5
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Without going into the merits of the case, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs.
26.11.2024 cda Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking order To The District Forest Officer, Tiruvannamalai Forest Division, Tiruvannamalai District.
4/5
5/5