Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 726 (UTT)

Umed Singh Nagarkoti v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-17

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner is presently working as Field Assistant in the Forest Department and as of now he is posted at Corbett Tiger Reserve (Kaladhungi Museum), Ramnagar, District Nainital. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in the Forest Department in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and thereafter he was transferred to Binsar (Almora) in the year 1989. At the relevant time in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the post of Forest Guard and Field Assistant were equivalent, as they carry the same pay scale. After the creation of the new State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. 2. All the same, there is structure, which has been adopted by the Forest Department in the State of Uttarakhand, where there is no post of Field Assistant, therefore, the petitioner was treated to be as Forest Guard. However, since the petitioner seniority was not fixed by the Department, he filed a claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand (Nainital Branch), which was disposed of by passing following order vide order dated 31.03.2011:- “The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically either to merge him in the cadre of Forest Guards or to create the post of Research Assistant within a period of three months. The petition is disposed of according. No order as to costs.” 3. Consequent, to the said order passed by the Public Service Tribunal, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Forest Guard. The contention of the petitioner is that he was already working on the post of Field Assistant for the last 13 years and he was promoted to the post of Forest Guard where the salary of Forest Guard and Field Assistant are the same. He further contends that he has been wrongly promoted to the post of Forest Guard although he is already working on the post of Field Assistant, which is equivalent to the post of Forest Guard. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court with a prayer that he shall be treated as Forest Guard since 2001 and he shall be given all the consequential benefits, including promotion, from the date when his juniors were promoted in the Department. 4. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court with a prayer that he shall be treated as Forest Guard since 2001 and he shall be given all the consequential benefits, including promotion, from the date when his juniors were promoted in the Department. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the State Government ought to have merged the services of the petitioner with that of Forest Guard, which is not being done in the present case. The contention of the petitioner appears to be correct. 5. On the other hand, the State in its counter affidavit has merely reiterated the logic, which has been given by the Director vide its order dated 21.05.2012. 6. The claim of the petitioner appears to be correct. The impugned order dated 21.05.2012 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, since the post of Field Assistant and Forest Guard are equivalent posts. The petitioner shall deem to be working as Forest Guard and his seniority is to be fixed according to the length of service on the post of Forest Guard. The petitioner is to reaches the age of his superannuation and is going to retire from service next year, hence, there is some urgency in the matter. 7. A mandamus is hereby issued to respondent No. 4 – Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar, Nainital to decide the matter of the petitioner in the light of the preceding paragraphs. The petitioner has to be treated as Forest Guard but from his initial date of appointment and thereafter considering the length of service, he shall be given next promotional post of Forester from the date he is eligible. 8. Let the needful be done in the matter and fresh order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed.