Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 339 (JK)

Bhagwan Dass Sharma v. State

2017-07-17

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner was appointed as Helper in the Social Forestry Division Jammu vide Forest Order No.3080 of 1994-95 dated 01.03.1995 i.e. Annexure A. Thereafter, vide Annexure B i.e. Forest Order No.35 of 2001 dated 04.12.2001, the petitioner was given officiating promotion as Social Forestry Worker which was continued vide order of the Directorate of Social Forestry i.e. Annexure C dated 20.03.2002. 2. Petitioner claims that the post of Social Forestry Worker in the Social Forestry Project is equivalent to the post of Forest Guard of the Forest Department and that in the year 2004, the Social Forestry Project was converted into a Government Department and was called as Department of Social Forestry. 3. Petitioner was nominated for Forest Guard Training Course vide Order Annexure D dated 14.02.2003, successfully completed the said course by securing first position and was awarded silver medal vide Annexure E. Thereafter, vide order Annexure F dated 25.11.2003, the petitioner was transferred from Social Forestry Division Jammu to IAEP Basantar West. The petitioner represented to the Department that since he had stood first in the Forest Guard Training Course and was also matriculate, therefore, as per rules, he be promoted as Forester/Block Officer. It is claimed that despite representation Annexure G, the matter remained pending with the respondents where-after order Annexure H dated 24.8.2005 was passed whereby the petitioner was given the charge of Block Sumb on the basis of which the petitioner claims that he became a Block Officer. 4. A perusal of Order Annexure H dated 24.08.2005 reveals that the petitioner was made in-charge of Block Sumb, Samba in addition to his own duties. The petitioner claims to have represented to the respondents vide Annexure's J & K that since he had stood first in the Forest Guard Training Course, he should be given regular promotion as Forester and also be deputed for KFC training. It is claimed that similarly situated persons as the petitioner who had got first position in the Forest Guard Training Course were given promotion as Deputy Foresters under the merit quota vide Annexure L. It is further claimed that persons junior to the petitioner had already been given regular promotion, but the petitioner despite being eligible and meritorious was not promoted. 5. 5. The petitioner claims that he figures at S.No.68 in the seniority list, whereas one Ranbir Singh who did not even get first position in the Forest Guard Training Course and who figured at S.No.72 in the seniority list Annexure M was promoted as Social Forestry Worker on regular basis despite being junior to the petitioner. In the aforementioned background, directions have been sought for regular promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Forest/Block Officer under the merit quota as per rules as had been given to other persons, namely Talib Hussain and Baljinder Singh vide Order Annexure L dated 05.05.2006. Prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ of prohibition for restraining the respondents from reducing the status of the petitioner from the post of Block Officer to a lower post till consideration of his case for regular promotion as Block Officer under the merit quota on the analogy of Forest Order Annexure L, dated 05.05.2006. 6. Petitioner has also moved MP No.01/2017 claiming that he was working as In-charge Deputy Forester/Block Officer since the year 2005 i.e. w.e.f 24.07.2005 and said charge was given to him on the ground that he had stood first in the Forest Guard Training Course in the Forest Guard Training School, Dhoomi, Akhnoor and earlier similar benefits had been given to Rajinder Singh and Jaswant Singh who were also first position holders in the same forest training course, said Rajinder Singh and Jaswant Singh were also employees of the Social Forestry Department and when they were sent for training, they were also working as Social Forestry Workers. It is claimed that the case of the petitioner was recommended for promotion to the rank of Deputy Forester by the DFO Social Forestry Division Kathua to the Regional Director, Social Forestry Department Jammu which was forwarded to the Director, Social Forestry Department Jammu for information and necessary action and that although the said recommendations had been made in the year 2008, the same had not been acted upon. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.2 had failed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the benefits as had been granted to Rajinder Singh, Baljinder Singh and Talib Hussain as referred to in MP No. 01/2017. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.2 had failed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the benefits as had been granted to Rajinder Singh, Baljinder Singh and Talib Hussain as referred to in MP No. 01/2017. Respondents, on the other hand, have taken up the stand in the objections that Baljinder Singh and Talib Hussain were employees of the Forest Department, that seniority had not been finalised and that claim of the petitioner would be considered on finalisation of seniority. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is employed in the Social Forestry Division, whereas Baljinder Singh and Talib Hussain are stated to be employees of the Forest Department. However, there is no denial to the averments in MP No.01/2017 of Rajinder Singh and Jaswant Singh, Social Forestry Workers working in the Social Forestry Department having been sent for training and of said Rajinder Singh having been regularized as Social Forestry Worker vide Order Annexure A dated 18.06.2014 w.e.f. the date he was given in-charge placement as also of his having been given credit of the post of Deputy Forester, whereas the petitioner who is similarly situated having been made only in-charge Deputy Forester without any grade benefit despite his case having been recommended for promotion to the post of Deputy Forester by the DFO Social Forestry Division Kathua vide letter Annexure B dated 07.02.2008, therefore, the petitioner being entitled to similar treatment as accorded to said Rajinder Singh. 9. A perusal of Annexure B dated 07.02.2008 attached to MP No.01/2017 reveals that as per the recommendations of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division Kathua to the Regional Director, Social Forestry Department, the petitioner had been allowed to officiate as Social Forestry Worker in his own pay and grade vide Forest Order No.35 of 2001 dated 04.12.2001, that he had been working as in-charge Forester in Social Forestry Range Hiranagar since his posting in said Division, that he had successfully completed six months Forestry Course and had been awarded silver medal for standing first in the said course, that injustice appeared to have been done to the petitioner and that he needed to be promoted at least equal to the rank of Deputy Forester i.e. the rank his junior had been promoted to. 10. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the position as noted above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular promotion as Deputy Forester w.e.f. the date, any person junior to the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Forester. Orders as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in accordance with rules and regulations applicable at the relevant point of time by taking into account the seniority list as well recommendations of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division to the Regional Director, Social Forestry Department as made vide Annexure A. In case the petitioner is found entitled to the benefits claimed, appropriate orders be passed within three months from date of receipt of this order. Writ petition is disposed of with aforementioned directions.