Break-in-service periods must be excluded when determining ten-year eligibility for regularisation under Government Orders.

The respondent was appointed as an Anti-Poaching Watcher on 01.04.2000 and posted in the Kalakkadu-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.

G.O.Ms.No.76, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.06.2010, provided for appointment to time-scale posts by creating supernumerary posts for Anti-Poaching Watchers who had completed ten years of service and whose services had been regularised.

G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 25.09.2014, extended the benefit to persons who had completed ten years of service as on 31.12.2010.

The respondent claimed that he completed ten years of service on 31.03.2010.

Information furnished under the Right to Information Act also indicated that he had completed ten years of service and stood at Sl.No.145 in the seniority list.

The appellants, however, contended that he had suffered a cumulative break-in-service of two years and two months, and therefore completed ten years of actual service only on 31.05.2012.

The learned Single Judge, by order dated 29.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2022, directed the appellants to regularise the respondent as an Anti-Poaching Watcher in the special time scale of pay and grant consequential benefits.

The State and its forest authorities filed the present writ appeal against that direction.

Whether the respondent was entitled to claim completion of ten years of service on 31.03.2010 by including the periods of break-in-service, so as to obtain the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 25.09.2014?

Whether completion of ten years of actual service entitled the respondent to automatic regularisation in the special time scale of pay or appointment/promotion as Forest Watcher?

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.76, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.06.2010, which contemplated time-scale appointments against supernumerary posts for Anti-Poaching Watchers who had completed ten years of service, and G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 25.09.2014, which extended the benefit to those completing ten years of service by 31.12.2010.

It further applied the binding directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.354 and 355 of 2016, dated 05.04.2018, under which ten years of service had to be calculated excluding the break-in-service, with each individual’s particulars being verified by the Department before consideration.

The Court also applied the principle that regularisation or appointment to a post cannot be judicially mandated contrary to the Government’s policy decision, particularly where the posts are supernumerary and do not confer an automatic right to regular appointment or promotion.

The Court found that the respondent’s break-in-service was undisputed and totalled two years and two months.

Although the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2010 amounted to ten calendar years, the earlier Division Bench decision expressly required breaks in service to be excluded when computing the qualifying ten-year period.

Applying that rule, the respondent completed ten years of actual service only on 31.05.2012, after the eligibility date contemplated by G.O.Ms.No.116.

The RTI response indicating completion of ten years on 31.03.2010 could not override the applicable service calculation or the binding directions governing the issue.

Moreover, even completion of ten years did not create an automatic right to regularisation or promotion, since the relevant posts were supernumerary and the matter remained subject to Government policy and departmental consideration.

Completion of that period did not independently confer a right to automatic regularisation or promotion as Forest Watcher.

The writ appeal was accordingly allowed; the learned Single Judge’s order dated 29.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2022 was set aside, with no order as to costs.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.