Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 157 (MAD)

S. N. Jayapal v. The Principal-Chief & Others

2003-02-04

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2003
Judgment :- F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. All the above Writ Petitions arise out of a common order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 3-10-2001 made in O.A.Nos.146, 3925, 4085, 4086, 4277, 4486 of 1997, 1972 of 1998 as well as the order dated 6-3-2002 made in O.A.No.1066 of 2002 dismissing the said O.A. based on common order dated 3-10-2001. Therefore, we dispose of the same by this common order. 2. In W.P.No.22900 of 2001 preferred by Thiru S.N.Jayapal, the challenge is to the order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 3-10-2001 in O.A.No.3925 of 1997, by issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the said order and direct the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner as Forest Ranger as on 1-4-1990 duly considering his seniority as Assistant Superintendent with effect from 20-11-1978, the date on which he was regularised as per proceedings dated 20-4-1998 and thereafter promote him as Asst.Conservator of Forests. 3. W.P.No.22901 of 2001 has been preferred by Thiru K.Rajendran against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, dated 3-10-2001 in O.A.No.4277 of 1997, by issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the said order and direct the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner as Forest Ranger as on 1-4-1990 duly considering his seniority as Assistant Chemist with effect from 11-2-1977 and thereafter promote him as Assistant Conservator of Forests. 4. W.P.No.22927 of 2002 has been preferred by Thiru S.N.Jayapal against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, dated 3-10-2001 in O.A.No.146 of 1997, to quash the said order and direct the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Conservator of Forests with effect from 1-4-1990 duly reckoning his seniority in the post of Assistant Superintendent with effect from 10-11-1978 and pay all other attendant benefits. 5. W.P.No.23737 of 2001 has been preferred by Thiru T.Krishnamachari challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 3-10-2001 in O.A.No.4486 of 1997, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the said order and direct the first respondent to regularise his services as Forest Ranger as from 1-4-1990 by considering his seniority as Asst. Superintendent with effect from 7-1-1977 with further promotion as Asst. Conservator of Forests. 6. Superintendent with effect from 7-1-1977 with further promotion as Asst. Conservator of Forests. 6. W.P.No.23070 of 2001 has been preferred by Thiru R.Devaraj challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 3-10-2001 in O.A.No.4085 of 1997, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the said order and direct the first respondent to regularise his services as Forest Ranger as from 1-4-1990 by considering his seniority as Asst.Superintendent with effect from 14-8-1984 with further promotion as Asst.Conservator of Forests. 7. W.P.No.7258 of 2002 has been preferred by Thiru N.Jayapal and four others challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 3-10-2001 in O.A.Nos.1972 of 1998, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the said order with further direction to the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioners as Forest Rangers duly counting their seniority as Asst.Superintendent/Research Assistants /Agricultural Assistant /Field Assistant/Assistant Chemist in partial modification of the post mentioned in Items 8 to 12 in the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.275 Environment and Forests (FR.VIII) Department dated 6-11-1996. 8. In W.P.8062 of 2002, the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal has challenged the order of State Administrative Tribunal dated 6-3-2002 in O.A.No.1066 of 2002, to quash the said order as well as the orders of the first and second respondents dated 11-2-2002 and 23-2-2002. This O.A. Was disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the common order passed in O.A.No.146 of 1997, etc., would cover the challenge in this O.A. as well and on that ground, dismissed this O.A.No.1066 of 2002. 9. In all these Writ Petitions, the common question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners who joined the services of the erstwhile Chinchona Department and who reached the stage of Assistant Superintendent in that department were entitled to be equated to the post of the Forest Ranger after their absorption in the Forest Department, consequent upon the winding up of Chinchona Department on and after 1-4-1990. 10. Though the posts held by the petitioners in the Chinchona Department was either Assistant Superintendent/ Research Assistant/Agricultural Assistant/ Field Assistant/ Assistant Chemist, it is common ground that all of them were in the status of Assistant Superintendents in the erstwhile Chinchona Department. 11. 10. Though the posts held by the petitioners in the Chinchona Department was either Assistant Superintendent/ Research Assistant/Agricultural Assistant/ Field Assistant/ Assistant Chemist, it is common ground that all of them were in the status of Assistant Superintendents in the erstwhile Chinchona Department. 11. For the sake of convenience, Mr.Anantharaju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed a statement containing chronological dates and events in respect of Thiru S.N.Jayapal, petitioner in W.P.Nos.22900 of 2001, 22927 and 8062 of 2002 and submitted that the same can be referred for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions. Therefore, we refer to the dates concerning the petitioner S.N.Jayapal for deciding the issue involved in these Writ Petitions. 12. Thiru S.N.Jayapal, who joined as Overseer in Chinchona Department on 16-4-1971 was promoted as Head Overseer Grade II on 10-4-1975 and further promoted as Head Overseer Grade I in October 1976. Subsequently on 20-11-1978, he was promoted as Asst. Superintendent in the Chinchona Department. While so, for certain stated reasons, Chinchona Department had to be wound up which got amalgamated with the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as "TANTEA" which came to be made by the State Government by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.221 Environment and Forests (CIN) Department, dated 3-4-1990. Under the said G.O., all the lands of Chinchona Department fit for growing tea were placed at the disposal of Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited (TANTEA) and the rest of the lands were transferred to the Forest Department. Under Clause 8(iii) of the said G.O., the entire labour force of Chinchona Department was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited with effect from 1 -4-1990. The said clause also specified that the wages shall not be less than what were paid by the Chinchona Department. Under Clause 8(iv), it was provided that TANTEA will also take over the entire Government staff of Chinchona Department on deputation, while the Forest Department will be the parent department for those staff with effect from 1-4-1990 pursuant to the winding up of Chinchona Department. 13. In view of such merger of Chinchona Department with TANTEA, necessary appointment orders were issued to the petitioners appointing the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal as Field Conductor Gr.II in the Lower Nihar Tea Division. 13. In view of such merger of Chinchona Department with TANTEA, necessary appointment orders were issued to the petitioners appointing the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal as Field Conductor Gr.II in the Lower Nihar Tea Division. Subsequently, while they were serving as such in 'TANTEA', by G.O.Ms.No.371 Environment and Forests (FR.VIII) Department, dated 27-11-1995, it was notified that the various persons who were holding Office in the TANTEA right from the level of Chairman to that of Asst.Field Conductor to be the 'Forest Officers' to enable them to discharge the function as a 'Forest Officer' for the removal of trees sold in public auction in the erstwhile Chinchona Department lands and also for transport of firewood from TANTEA Corporation Limited areas or from the Depots of the said Corporation to the factories of 'TANTEA' for their own use in the Districts of Nilgiris and Coimbatore. The said Notification was purported to have been issued by virtue of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1882). Thereafter, by G.O.Ms.No.275 Environment and Forests (FR.VII) Department dated 6-11-1996, the post of Asst.Superintendent/ Research Assistant/Agricultural Assistant/ Field Assistant/ Assistant Chemist in the Chinchona Department whose scale of pay was Rs.1400-2600 was equated to the post of 'Forester' in the Forest Department whose scale of pay was also Rs.1400-2600. 14. In fact, the petitioners who were holding the above said posts in the erstwhile Chinchona Department after winding up of the said department pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 3-4-1990 came to be deputed to TANTEA Corporation Limited and were posted as Field Conductor Grade II in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600. It was not in dispute that till that point of time, their scale of pay was 1400-2600. It is also not in dispute that the pre revised scale of pay of a Forester was also 1400-2600. 15. In the hierarchy of various posts in the Forest Department, the immediate next higher post for a Forester was the post of Forest Ranger. It is common ground that in so far as Class I Service in Forest Department is concerned, the starting post was a 'Mali' and the highest post was 'Ranger'. The post of 'Ranger' is the promotional post for a 'Forester'. 16. It is common ground that in so far as Class I Service in Forest Department is concerned, the starting post was a 'Mali' and the highest post was 'Ranger'. The post of 'Ranger' is the promotional post for a 'Forester'. 16. The Rules regarding the constitution, appointment, promotion, etc., of the various category of services, such as, Class I to Class IV in the 'Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service' have been codified. Clause 5 of such codified regulations deals with the promotion of a Forester to the post of 'Ranger' and the relevant clause reads as under: 5.3: Must have served as Forester for a period of not less than eight years in the case of Foresters who have not successfully completed a course of training for Rangers' College, Coimbatore or the Northern Forest Rangers College, Dehradun. 5.4: Must have passed the following Departmental Tests namely: a) Forest Law; b) Office Procedure and Accounts (G.O.Ms.No.224,E&F, Department, dt.5-9-1994, B1/75008/85) 5.5: A Forester selected as Ranger by promotion should undergo training for a period of atleast one year in a Forest Ranger College before appointment as Ranger. (G.O.Ms.No.75, E&F, dt.21-3-1996 (B1/30531/89). A reading of the above Clause makes it amply clear that for a Forester, to become a Ranger, he must have served as a Forester for a period of not less than eight years in the case of Foresters who have not completed the course of training in the Rangers' College either at Coimbatore or Dehradun and must have passed the Departmental Tests for 'Forest Law' as well as 'Office procedure and Accounts'. Even after a successful elevation of a Forester as Ranger on promotion, he should undergo training for atleast one year in a Forest Rangers College before his appointment as Ranger, which is now stated to be six months. 17. Be that as it may, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, after the merger of Chinchona Department and after their deputation to 'TANTEA', by a specific order dated 22-5-1997, they were appointed as Foresters by the prescribed appointing authority in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 20-4-1998 considering the completion of 10 years of continuous service as from 20-11-1978, the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal was accorded the Selection Grade status in the post of Asst.Superintendent as and from the forenoon of 20-11-1988 in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 20-4-1998 considering the completion of 10 years of continuous service as from 20-11-1978, the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal was accorded the Selection Grade status in the post of Asst.Superintendent as and from the forenoon of 20-11-1988 in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900. Consequently, a direction was issued to upgrade his post as and from the above said date, namely, 20-11-1988 as a Selection Grade post and continue to retain the said post as a Selection Grade Asst.Superintendent till the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal continue to remain in that post. Subsequently by yet another proceedings dated 5-5-2000, the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal was given a further improvement in the post of Asst. Superintendent whereby he was accorded the status of 'Special Grade' as and from the forenoon of 20-11-1998 by virtue of completion of 10 years as Selection Grade Asst. Superintendent. He was also extended the corresponding Special Grade pay in the revised pay scale, namely 6500-10500 from the Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000. 18. It is relevant to note that though the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal was holding the post of Asst. Superintendent in which he was accorded the above said special benefits of Selection Grade, as well as, Special Grade, by virtue of the completion of 10 years in the respective posts, namely, as Asst. Superintendent and as Selection Grade Asst.Superintendent respectively, the fact remains that the various scales of pay which the petitioner Thiru S.N.Jayapal was drawing either as Asst.Superintendent or as Selection Grade Asst.Superintendent or as Special Grade Superintendent was only the scales that were applicable to a Forester (or) a Selection Grade Forester (or) Special Grade Forester respectively whose scale of pay in the pre revised scale, as well as, in the revised scale remained at Rs.1400-2600 equal to 5000-8000; 1640-2900 equal to 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 respectively which was applicable to the post of a 'Forester'. One other factor which is incidentally relevant to be noted is that the revised starting scale of pay of a 'Ranger' is Rs.6500-10500. One other factor which is incidentally relevant to be noted is that the revised starting scale of pay of a 'Ranger' is Rs.6500-10500. Except this common feature in the scale of pay of Special Grade Forester and the starting scale of a 'Forest Ranger', the hard fact remains that the post of a Forester either he be an ordinary Forester or a Special Grade Forester, the post of a Ranger is higher in rank and in order to become a Ranger which is a selection post, the stipulations contained in Clause 5.3 to 5.5 are to be necessarily satisfied. 19. In the above stated background, when the case of the petitioners is considered, it will have to be stated that the petitioners, though achieved the status of Special Grade in the post of Forester which was the equivalent post corresponding to the post they held in the erstwhile Chinchona Department, in which status they continued to be retained after the amalgamation of the Chinchona Department, their status continued to remain as 'Forester' excepting that they were accorded the benefit of either 'Selection Grade' or 'Special Grade' and thereby providing for improvement in their scales of pay either in the pre revised scale or in the revised scale. The petitioners were under the false impression that by virtue of their service rendered in the Chinchona Department prior to 1-4-1990 and after their return to the Forest Department in the year 1990, they were entitled to be confirmed by according promotions up to the level of Asst.Conservator of Forests without satisfying the requirement to be complied with under the relevant rules regulating the promotion from the post of 'Forester' to that of a 'Ranger' and from the post of 'Ranger' to that of 'Asst.Conservator of Forests'. 20. The petitioners, by virtue of the misconception that loomed large in their mind appeared to have moved the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.3925, 146, 4486, 4085, 4086, 4277 of 1997, 1972 of 1998 and 1066 of 2002 aspiring for the grant of automatic promotion by ignoring the relevant Rules relating to promotion. The Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the claims of the petitioners, vis-a-vis their respective merits, declined to grant any relief to the petitioners by passing the impugned common order in the O.As. and also in the order dated 6-3-2002 in O.A.No.1066 of 2002 preferred by the petitioners. 21. The Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the claims of the petitioners, vis-a-vis their respective merits, declined to grant any relief to the petitioners by passing the impugned common order in the O.As. and also in the order dated 6-3-2002 in O.A.No.1066 of 2002 preferred by the petitioners. 21. As discussed earlier, for the promotion from the post of 'Forester' to that of a 'Ranger', first and foremost, Rule 5.3 makes it very clear that one should have served as a 'Forester for a period of not less than 8 years in the case of a Forester who has not successfully completed a course of training in the Forest Rangers' College either at Coimbatore or at Dehradun. None of the petitioners claim that they have successfully completed a course of training in Rangers' College, Coimbatore or the Northern Forest Rangers College, Dehradun. The expression used in the above said rules is, "must have served as Forester for a period of not less than 8 years ...". When the above said expressions are applied to the case of the petitioners, though they would claim that they were working in the post of Asst.Superintendent (i.e.) the post equivalent to that of a 'Forester' for more than 8 years even in the erstwhile Chinchona Department and thereafter in 'TANTEA', the hard fact remains that they never worked as a 'Forester' in the Forest Department. 22. The stipulation that one must have served as a 'Forester for a period of 8 years' has got a specific intent and purpose, inasmuch as the post of a Forester has got its own pitfalls in its duties and responsibilities which one would not gain unless he had really worked as a 'Forester' in the Forest Department and not in any equivalent post though belongs to a Forest service in any other department. When such a stipulation has got a real purport and intent in order to consider a Forester to the higher post of 'Ranger' in the Forest Department which post again carries still more responsibilities and onerous duties to be performed in the post of a Ranger, the stipulation contained in 5.3 cannot be lightly dealt with or ignored in order to hold that the petitioners should be deemed to have worked as Forester for the required number of 8 years as stipulated in the relevant clause 5.3 even though, as a matter of fact, they did not really work as a 'Forester' in the Forest Department as stipulated in the said clause. When such a strict application of the said rule is really called for, having regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities to be performed in the post of a Forester, the contention of the petitioners that such a stipulation is to be ignored and their longer number of years of service in the post of Asst. Superintendent should be given weightage and on that basis, they should have been accorded the higher post of 'Ranger' after completion of the required number of years of service, i.e. 8 years in the post of Asst. Superintendent with further promotion to the post of Asst. Conservator of Forests if acceded to, that would result in total violation of the Rules relating to the promotion and it will make a mockery of the whole purport and intent of the Rules which stipulates satisfactory compliance of necessary stipulations. 23. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr.Anantharaju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners while attacking the order of the Tribunal impugned before us. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel made on behalf of the petitioners, inasmuch as the order of the Tribunal has dealt with the relevant G.Os., namely, G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 3-4-1990, and 275, dated 6-11-1996 as well as the orders impugned before it in the above said O.A.Nos.3925, 146, 4085, 4086, 4277, 4486, of 1997, 1972 of 1998 in the common order dated 3-10-2001 as well as in the O.A.No.1066 of 2002 by its order dated 6-3-2002 impugned before us and we do not find any scope to interfere either with the reasoning or the conclusion of the Tribunal while dismissing all the above O.As. In the result, all the Writ Petitions, fail and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed.