Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1514 (MAD)

Aruna Basu Sarcar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2016-04-11

H.G.RAMESH, K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

body2016
ORDER : Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Heard learned counsel representing the Writ Petitioner/Applicant as well as learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents/State. 2. Against the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1306 of 2015, two writ petitions have been filed; one by the petitioner/applicant and another by the State, challenging the finding rendered by the Tribunal praying to post the petitioner/applicant in regular posting of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. 3. It transpires that petitioner/applicant viz., Dr. Mrs. Aruna Basu Sarcar, being an I.F.S. Officer, as per request of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Mettupalayam, was deputed to the post of Dean (Forestry) at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Mettupalayam, in the cadre of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest. 4. The grievance of the petitioner/applicant is that she was already holding the post of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest; apart from providing Pay Protection, the fact remains that the posting given by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in the cadre of Dean (Forestry), is lesser or inferior cadre than the post, she already held. According to the petitioner/applicant, this has been upset by the Tribunal, directing the respondents/State to give posting appropriate to her cadre viz., Additional Chief Conservator of Forests. 5. Insofar as the grievance of the respondents/State is concerned, when pay protection had been extended, instead of reporting to the duty and make a representation, the petitioner/applicant remained absent on one or other grounds including medical grounds and there is no such error committed by the respondent/Department in deputing the petitioner as Dean (Forestry). 6. A list of IFS Officers, working in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University as Dean (Forestry), who were deputed earlier in the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forests/Conservator of Forests/Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has been produced by the learned Additional Advocate General. As a matter of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submitted all that all those persons who were already posted as Chief Conservator of Forest, later have been promoted as Additional Chief Conservator of Forest. He further contended that the post held by those IFS Officers were on deputation and was equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest. He further contended that the post held by those IFS Officers were on deputation and was equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest. He further argued that the stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General to the effect that Dean (Forests) is equivalent to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest cannot be acted upon in the present case of the posting given to the petitioner/applicant and it cannot be said to be the equivalent post as Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order, impugned in these writ petitions. 8. Having gone through the various rank of postings in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, it is seen that the posting of the Dean (Forestry) in the University is not equivalent to the posting of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. Insofar as the pay protection is concerned, mere extension of pay protection would not satisfy in any way the promoted post already held by the petitioner/applicant. 9. In the circumstances, we do not find any discrepancy or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, we direct the respondents/State Government to extend pay protection along with appropriate posting to the cadre of the petitioner/applicant. However, if the petitioner/applicant had applied for leave it could be treated as earned leave if it is in her credit or else to treat as leave without pay. 10. On the above findings, the Writ Petition filed by the State/W.P. No. 11920 of 2016 is dismissed. On the other hand, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner/applicant in W.P. No. 6956 of 2016 is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 06.01.2016 is confirmed. It is hereby ordered that the respondent/State shall take earnest steps to extend the posting already given to the petitioner/applicant in the cadre of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.