Pankaj Dubey vs D/o Forests Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir

:: 1 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1551/2021 &
TA 6590/2021
Reserved on: - 29.01.2026
Pronounced on: - 18.08.2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

1. OA/1551/2021

1. Pankaj Dubey, Age 40 years S/o Sh. Gopal Ram R/o Jakh, Tehsil
Vijaypur, District Samba.180001
2. LaryGomes, Age 39 years, S/o Sh. William Sotra R/o H.no. 133,
Christian Colony, Tehsil and District Jammu.180001.
3. Paramjeet Singh, Age 35 years S/o Sh. Bhagwant Singh R/o H.No.
245, New Plot, Puran Nagar, Jammu. 184121
4. Bipet Raj, Age 45 years, S/o Sh. Amar Nath R/o Mandi Thalor,
Tehsil and District Samba. 180001.
5. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Age 47 years S/o Sh. Daya Ram Sharma
R/o Barola, Tehsil Mera Mandrian, District Jammu. 181102
6. Mulkh Raj, Age 54 years, S/o Sh. Gian Chand R/o Chak Talab,
Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.181102.
7. Surjeet Kumar, Age 42 years, S/o Sh. Banarsi Lal R/o Mula Chak,
Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu. 182202.
8. Puran Chand, Age 51 years S/o Sh. Ram Nath, R/o Kiyar, Tehsil
Dachhan, District Kishtwar 182202.
…Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Adarsh Sharma)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 2 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021




Versus

1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir, Through Commissioner/Secretary to
Goyt., Forest Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu/Srinagar.180001
2. Director, Forest Protection Force, J&K, Jammu/Srinagar.180002
3. Joint Director, Forest Protection Force, Jammu.180001
4. Sewa Ram, Watcher, Doda.182204
5. Nazir Ahmed Mir, (Watcher) Ramban 182202
6. Inder Singh (Watcher) Kishtwar 182202
7. Banarsi Lal (Watcher) Kishtwar 182202
8. Bodh Raj (Watcher) Kishtwar 182202
9. Gh. NabiMengnoo (Watcher) Kishtwar 182202
10. Tahir Iqbal (Watcher) Kishtwar 182202
11. Farid Ahmad (Watcher) Kishtwar 182202
12. Krishan Kumar Dhar (Watcher) Kishtwar 182202
13. RajniBala (Watcher) Jammu 180001
14. Bharat Bhushan (Watcher) Jammu 180001
15. Vishnu Dutt (Watcher) Jammu 180001
16. Mohammad Farid (Watcher) Kathua 184202
17. Showket Ali (Watcher) Kathua 184202
18. Nawab Din Wani (Watcher) Kathua 184202
19. Gulzar Singh (Watcher) Kathua 184202
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 3 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



20. Kamlesh Kumari (Watcher) Kathua 182002
21. Yudhvir Singh (Watcher) Kathua. 184202
22. Abdul Hamid (Watcher) Poonch
23. Nazir Hussain (Watcher) Poonch
24. Niaz Ahmad (Watcher) Poonch.
25. Mohd. Rajab (Watcher) Rajouri 185201
26. Mohd. Faroor (Watcher) Rajouri 185201
27. Mohd. Youns (Watcher) Rajouri 185201
28. Ragbir Singh (Watcher) Rajouri 185201
29. Sheraz Ahmad (Watcher) Rajouri 185201
30. Abdul Qayoom (Watcher) Rajouri. 185201
31. Romesh Kumar (Watcher) Udhampur. 182101
32. Kewal Kumar (Watcher) Udhampur. 182101
33. Mohan Lal (Watcher) Udhampur. 182101
34. Rajinder Sharma (Watcher) Udhampur. 182101
35. RomeshSingh (Watcher) Udhampur. 102101
36. Sanjiv Kumar (Watcher) Udhampur.182101
37. Kuldeep Kumar (Watcher) Udhampur.182101
38. Kuldeep Singh (Watcher) Udhampur. 182101
39. Ashok Kumar (Watcher) Reasi. 182101.
(Respondent No. 4-39 C/o Joint Director Forest Protection Force,
Jammu-180001.)
…Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. A.A.G.)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 4 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021




2. TA/6590/2021
1. Manjeet Kumar, Age 44 years S/o Sh. Om Raj R/o Village Sambal,
Tehsil and District Udhampur.
2. Mohd. Iqbal, Age 39 years S/o Dil Mohd. R/o Dera Babar, Tehsil
and District Reasi
3. Mohd. Arif, Age 43 years S/o Mohd. Sadiq R/o Chhna, Tehsil
Chassana, District Reasi.
4. Shamasdin, Age 53 years S/o Kamal Din R/o Bagga, Tehsil
Mahore, District Reasi.
5. Mast Ram, Age 57 years, S/o Kirpa Ram R/o Chajar, Tehsil
Mahore, District Reasi.
6. Bihari Lal, Age 43 years, S/o Hari Chand R/o Trintha, Tehsil and
District Reasi.
7. Babu Ram, Age 44 years, S/o Jhelu Ram R/o Panassa, Tehsil and
District Reasi.
8. Subash Chander, Age 48 years, S/o Sh. Agya Ram R/o Karva,
Tehsil and District Reasi.
9. Kartar Singh, Age 41 years, S/o Sh. Puran Singh R/o Kanthi, tehsil
Dharmari, District Reasi.
10. Shiv Lal, Age 40 years, S/o Sh. Durga Dass R/o Patta, Tehsil and
District Reasi.
11. Ab. Rashid, Age 48 years S/o Mohd. Ayoub, R/o Arnas, Tehsil
Anras, District Reasi
12. Irshad Ahmed Sheikh, Age 53 years, S/o Shah Wali Sheikh R/o
Bilal Abad, Kishtwar, District Kishtwar.
13. Mohd. Ashraf Khan, Age 43 years, S/o Mohd. Subhan R/o
Khanpura, Dadpeth, Tehsil Chattroo, District Kishtwar.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 5 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



14. Gh. Hussain Margay, Age 51 years, S/o Gh. Mohd. Magray R/o
Nowpach Marwah, Tehsil Marwah, District Kishtwar.
15. Mukesh Kumar, Age 44 years, S/o Bhagat Ram R/o Goundow,
District Doda.
16. Pervez Ahmed Lone, Age 47 years, S/o Khushi Mohd. Lone R/o
Lonepure Padyarna, District Kishtwar.
17. Mohd. Ashraf Sirwal, Age 57 years, S/o Abdul Hameed Sirwal R/o
Abubakar Mohallah, Kishtwar, District Kishtwar.
18. Masood Ahmed Kalal, Age 55 years, S/o Gh. Mohd. Kalal R/o
Tund, Kishtwar, District Kishtwar.
19. Mohd. Maqbool Wani, Age 49 years, S/o Ghulam Qadir R/o
Passarkoot Chattroo District Kishtwar.
20. Kuldeep Kumar, Age 55 years, S/o Lassu Ram R/o Kuleed
Kishtwar, District Kishtwar.
21. Sajad Hussain Butt, Age 46 years, S/o Ghulam Qadir Butt, R/o
District Hospital Kishtwar, District Kishtwar.
22. Kailash Kumar, Age 44 years, S/o Bhagwan Dass, R/o Janakpur
Dachhan District Kishtwar.
23. Noor Hussain Mir, Age 54 years, S/o Mohd. Munwar mir R/o
Janakpur Dachhan, District Kishtwar.
24. Suran Singh, Age 46 years, S/o Ram Krishan R/o Palmar, District
Kishtwar.
25. Arshad Hussain, Age 40 years, S/o Ghulam Mohd. Mattoo R/o
Razna Palmar, District Kishtwar.
26. Bushan Kumar Age 50 years S/o Sh. Hem Raj Doda R/o Doda
Tehsil District Doda.
27. Farooq Ahmed, Age 41 years S/o Late Faqiroo Sheikh R/o
Forwan, Doda.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 6 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



28. Nitya Nand, Age 51 years, S/o Late Hari Saran R/o Bhagwah,
Doda.
29. Bodh Raj, Age 44 years, S/o Sh. Shiv Lal R/o Hanga, Bhaderwah.
30. Subash Chander, Age 51 years S/o Late Isher Lal R/o Kundosu,
Tehsil Bhalla, District Doda.

31. Farooq Ahmed Rishoo, Age 56 years, S/o Late Gandir Rishoo R/o
R/o Shangroo, Tehsil Bhalla, District Doda.
32. Bansi Lal, Age 57 years, S/o Late Inshar lal R/o Kandasu, Tehsil
Bhaderwah, District Doda.
33. Raj Kumar, Age 53 years S/o Sh. Shadi Lal R/o Sharerna, Tehsil
Bhaderwah, District Doda.
34. Sanjay Kumar, Age 40 years S/o Sansar Chand R/o Cheaka,
Bhaderwah.
35. Pardeep Kumar, Age 48 years S/o Late Hari Prakash R/o Dandi,
Bhaderwah.
36. Mushtaq Ahmed, Age 53 years, S/o Late Abdul Gani R/o Udrana,
Bhaderwah,
37. Ved Parkash, Age 46 years S/o Ghambir Chand R/o Gutassa,
Bhaderwah.
38. Naresh Singh, Age 38 years, S/o Bhagwan Singh R/o Bharoon,
Bhagwah, Doda.
39. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khan, Age 49 years, S/o Ab. Aziz Khan R/o
Krawa, tehsil Banihal, District Ramban.
40. Bilal Ahmed Rather, Age 44 Years, S/o Lassu Rather R/o Doligam
Banihal, District Ramban
41. Ishaq Ahmed Dar, Age 37 years S/o Ab. Aziz Dar R/o Darpora,
Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 7 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



42. Shabir Ahmed Malik, Age 40 years S/o Ahmadullah Malik R/o
Fharwagam Kaskoot, Tehsil banihal, District Rambam.
43. Abdul Hamid Shan, Age 53 years S/o Mohd. Abdullah Shan R/o
Gool, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban.
44. Shames-ud-din, Age 53 years, S/o Shakur-ud-din R/o Chachauah,
Tehsil Gool, District Ramban.
45. Bashir Ahmed, Age 39 years S/o Jumma R/o Gool Dacchan, Tehsil
Gool District Ramban.
46. Pankaj Dubey, Age 40 years S/o Sh. Gopal Ram R/o Jakh, Tehsil
Vijaypur, District Samba.
47. Puran Chand, Age 51 years S/o Sh. Ram Nath R/o Kiyar, Tehsil
Dachhan, District Kishtwar.
48. Bipet Raj, Age 45 years, S/o Sh. Amar Nath R/o Mandi Thalor,
Tehsil and District Samba.
49. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Age 47 years S/o Sh. Daya Ram Sharma
R/o Barola, Tehsil Mera Mandrian, District Jammu.
50. Lary Gomes, Age 39 years, S/o Sh. William Sotra R/o H.no. 133,
Christian Colony, Tehsil and District Jammu.
51. Vinod Choudhary, Age 46 years S/o Sh. Roshan Lal R/o Village
Hansa, Tehsil Suchetgarh, District Jammu.
52. Pawan Singh, Age 50 years S/o Sh. Diwan Singh R/o Mandi Garh,
Tehsil Vijaypur, District Samba
53. Paramjeet Singh, Age 35 years S/o Sh. Bhagwant Singh R/o H.No.
245, New Plot, Puran Nagar, Jammu.
54. Raj Kumar, Age 43 years S/o Sh. Munshi Ram R/o Chak Bajalta,
Tehsil and District Jammu.
55. Mohd. Ishaq, Age 44 years S/o Mohd. Akram Bhatti R/o Baba
Farid Nagar, Seora, Tehsil Bishnah, District Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 8 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



56. Surjeet Kumar, Age 42 years, S/o Sh. Banarsi Lal R/o Mula Chak,
Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.
57. Kuldeep Singh, Age 41 years S/o Sh. Karnail Singh R/o Langoor
Camp, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Samba.
58. Sukh Raj, Age 42 years S/o Sh. Bishamber Dass R/o Ramgarh,
District Samba
59. Balbir Singh, Age 41 years S/o Sh. Piara Singh R/o Colony
Madoon, Tehsil Rajpura, District Samba.
60. Mohd. Ayub, Age 56 years, S/o Qayam Din R/o Nathi, Tehsil
Billawar, District Kathua
61. Onkar Chand, Age 55 years S/o Wajir Chand R/o Rampur, Tehsil
Billawar, District Kathua.
62. Pair Singh, Age 51 years S/o Sh. Baldev Singh R/o Ward No. 2,
Tehsil and District Kathua
63. Harbans Lal, Age 51 years S/o Sh. Achru Ram R/o Mara Patti,
Tehsil Mahanpur, District Kathua.
64. Sambhagh Singh, Age 42 years S/o Sh. Baldev Singh R/o Katli
(Dinga Amb), Tehsil Dinga Amb, District Kathua.
65. Pawan Kumar, Age 55 years S/o Sh. Dhani Ram R/o Daralta,
Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
66. Onkar Chand, Age 55 years S/o Sh. Sant Ram R/o Kelhri, Tehsil
Mahanpur, District Kathua.
67. Onkar, Age 42 years S/o Katnail R/o Bagoch Chak, Tehsil
Hiranagar, District Kathua.
68. Pushpa Devi, Age 49 years W/o Late Sansar Singh R/o Dukhat
(Hatli), Tehsil and District Kathua.
69. Sunita Devi, Age 49 years W/o Late Rajinder Kumar R/o Ward
No. 2, Tehsil and District Kathua.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 9 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



70. Zakir Hussain, Age 48 years S/o Sollah Mohd. R/o Prori, tehsil
Koteranka, District Rajouri.
71. Mohd. Rafiq, Age 53 years S/o Shahid Mohd. R/o Bindi, Tehsil
Kakakote, District Rajouri.
72. Abdul Gani, Age 43 years S/o Bulla R/o Tralla, Tehsil Koteranka,
District Rajouri.
73. Kulbir Singh, Age 52 years S/o Sh. Chuni Lal R/o Baro, Tehsil
Kalakote, District Rajouri.
74. Rattan Lal, Age 49 years S/o Sh. Lochan Ram R/o Aindorla, tehsil
Kalakote, District Rajouri.
75. Jagdish Raj, Age 44 years S/o Sh. Gian Chand R/o Chak Talab,
tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.
76. Mulkh Raj, Age 54 years, S/o Sh. Gian Chand R/o CHak Talab,
Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.
77. Bashir Ahmed, Age 44 years, S/o Shail Din R/o Jandial, Tehsil Kot
Bhalwal, District Jammu.
78. Gulzar Ahmed, Age 49 years S/o Abdul Gani R/o Mahore, Tehsil
Mahore, District Reasi
79. Mohd. Irshad, Age 41 years S/o Nazir Ahmed R/o Dhanu, Tehsil
Kot Bhalwal, District Jammu.
…Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Adarsh Sharma)

Versus

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Through Commissioner/Secretary to
Govt., Forest Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 10 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



2. Director, Forest Protection Force, J&K, Jammu/Srinagar.
3. Joint Director, Forest Protection Force, Jammu.
…Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. A.A.G.)




















HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 11 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and TA No.
6590/2021 which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court
seeking herein the following reliefs: -
1) OA/1551/2021
I. Quashment of the orders being order No. 1165 DFPF of 2018
Dated: -03-12-2018, Order No: 1163 DFPF of 2018 Dated: - 03-
12-2018 and order No: 1168 DFPF of 2018, whereby the private
respondent No: - 4 to 39 has been promoted as FPF guards from
FPF watchers.
II. Quashment of SRO 422 issued on 05.10.2017 only to the extent it
provides the post of Applicants (i.e. Orderly, Chowkidar &
Safaiwala) falls in Class-VII (Category-A, B&C) as a feeding
cadre to the post of Jr. Assistant/Driver falls in Class-VI
Category- A & B of Schedule-II-B Ministerial.
III. Further quashing the order being Govt. order No. 360-FST of
2012 dated 19.09.2012, whereby sanction was accorded to the
down gradation of 512 post of Forest Protection Guard and
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 12 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



utilization of the post so down-graded for adjustment of an equal
number of Watchers from the date of their initial appointment.
IV. Quashment of the Schedule-II-A (Executive) attached to SRO-422
issued on 05.10.2017 only to the extent it provides the post of
watchers (were holding by respondent No. 4 to 39) falls in Class-
V as a feeding cadre to the post of guard falls in class-IV
Schedule-II-A (Executive).
V. Direct / command the respondents to treat and include the
Applicants’ post, (i.e. Orderlies, Chowkidars & Safaiwalas) as a
feeding cadre to the post of Promotion Quota of Forest Protection
Force Guards as the Applicants are already enrolled members as
provided in SRO 264 i.e. The Jammu and Kashmir Forest
(Protection) Force Act, 2012 framed under the Act.By changing
the post of petitioner from Schedule-II-B (Ministerial) to
Schedule-II-A (Executive).
VI. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand.
2) TA/6590/2021
I. Writ of Certiorari quashing the SRO 422 issued on 05.10.2017
only to the extent it provides the post of petitioners (i.e. Orderlies
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 13 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



Chowkidars & Safaiwala) falls in Class-VII (Category-A,B&C) as
a feeding cadre to the post of Jr. Assistant/Driver falls in Class-VI
Category- A & B of Schedule-II-B Ministerial.

II. Further writ of Certiorari quashing the order being Govt. order
No. 360-FST of 2012 dated 19.09.2012, whereby sanction was
accorded to the down-gradation of 512 post of Forest Protection
Guard and utilization of the post so down-graded for adjustment
of and equal number of Watchers from the date of their initial
appointment.
III. Further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat
and include the Petitioners post (i.e. Orderlies, Chowkidars &
Safaiwalas) as a feeding cadre to the post of Promotion Quota of
Forest Protection Force Guards as the petitioners are already
enrolled members as provided in SRO 264 i.e. The Jammu and
Kashmir Forest (Protection) Force Act, 2012 framed under the
Act.
IV. Any other writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings
are as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 14 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



a) The applicants/petitioners are Class-IV employees working in
the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Protection Force (FPF) on the
posts of Orderly, Chowkidar and Safaiwala. Most of them were
appointed in or around the year 1997, while some were
appointed subsequently. Their grievance essentially relates to
denial of a promotional avenue to the post of Forest Protection
Force Guard under the Jammu and Kashmir State Forest
Protection Force (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules,
2017, notified vide SRO 422 dated 05.10.2017.
b) The case set up by the applicants is that the Forest Protection
Force was created pursuant to Government Order No. 129-PD
of 1996 dated 04.12.1996, following Cabinet Decision No. 12/7
dated 02.12.1996, whereby various posts were created for
establishing a specialized force for protection of forest property.
Subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Protection)
Force Act, 2001 was enacted. According to the applicants, the
Force was conceived broadly on the pattern of the Police
Department, with its personnel being required to perform duties
relating to protection and security of forest property.
c) It is further pleaded that in exercise of the powers under Section
18 of the Act of 2001, the Jammu and Kashmir Forest
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 15 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



(Protection) Force Rules, 2012 were notified vide SRO 264
dated 09.08.2012. The applicants rely particularly upon
Schedule-I to the said Rules to contend that Orderlies,
Chowkidars and Safaiwalas were included amongst the enrolled
members of the Force. On that basis, they claim that they
cannot be treated merely as ordinary ministerial/Class-IV staff
disconnected from the executive functioning of the Force.
d) The applicants further contend that, notwithstanding their
nomenclature, their services have throughout been utilized in
operational and field duties. They claim to have performed
duties at check-posts, in forest protection operations, fire-
fighting, prevention of encroachment and theft of forest
produce and other field assignments, besides being supplied
uniform and granted allowances admissible to enrolled
members of the Force. According to them, they have rendered
more than two decades of service without being afforded an
appropriate promotional avenue in the executive hierarchy.
e) The applicants place considerable reliance upon the Draft
Recruitment Rules prepared by the Department prior to
notification of SRO 422 of 2017. According to them, under the
draft scheme, recruitment to the post of FPF Guard was
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 16 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



proposed to be made to the extent of 65% by direct recruitment
and 35% by promotion, and out of the promotional quota, 80%
was proposed for Watchers and the remaining 20% for other
Class-IV officials. Thus, their posts were contemplated as a
feeding source for promotion to the post of FPF Guard.
f) Their grievance arose when the final Recruitment Rules were
notified vide SRO 422 of 2017. Under Schedule-II-A thereof,
75% of the posts of FPF Guard were to be filled by direct
recruitment and 25% by promotion from Class-IV Watchers.
On the other hand, Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas were
placed in Schedule-II-B, i.e. the ministerial cadre, with their
promotional avenues shown towards the posts of Junior
Assistant/Driver. The applicants contend that their exclusion
from the feeding cadre for promotion as FPF Guard, despite
their status and duties as enrolled members of the Force, is
arbitrary and discriminatory.
g) The applicants thereafter represented their grievance before the
departmental authorities. They rely upon communication No.
DFPF/RR/29/Estt/9155 dated 14.02.2018, whereby their case
was recommended to the Government for sympathetic
consideration. The said communication also referred to the
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 17 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



earlier proposal under the Draft Recruitment Rules providing a
share in the promotional quota of FPF Guards to Class-IV
employees other than Watchers.

h) Another limb of their challenge concerns Government Order
No. 360-FST of 2012 dated 19.09.2012. According to the
applicants, by virtue of the said order, 512 sanctioned posts of
Forest Protection Guard were downgraded to the level/pay scale
of Watchers and utilized for adjustment of an equal number of
Watchers from the dates of their initial appointments. The
applicants contend that the Watchers were not originally borne
on the cadre of the Forest Protection Force and that such down-
gradation substantially reduced the number of posts otherwise
available in the cadre of FPF Guards, thereby adversely
affecting their promotional prospects.
i) The applicants also seek parity with Class-IV employees of the
Forest Department by referring to SRO 335 of 1991, under
which, according to them, Class-IV employees including
Orderlies, Chowkidars, Safaiwalas and Watchers were eligible
for promotion as Forest Guards. They contend that despite
rendering more than two decades of service, they have been
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 18 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



denied promotion even to the entry-level executive post of FPF
Guard.
j) The aforesaid grievance initially led to filing of SWP No.
784/2018, subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and
registered as TA No. 6590/2021 . During pendency of the said
proceedings, certain Watchers were promoted as FPF Guards in
terms of SRO 422 of 2017. Aggrieved thereof, OA No.
1551/2021 was instituted seeking, inter alia, quashing of the
promotion orders issued in favour of the private respondents
and reiterating the challenge to SRO 422 of 2017 and
Government Order No. 360-FST of 2012.
k) In substance, therefore, the applicants seek inclusion of
Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas as a feeding cadre for
promotion to the post of FPF Guard, instead of restricting their
promotional avenues only to Junior Assistant/Driver. They also
assail the preferential promotional avenue made available to
Watchers and contend that the impugned classification under
SRO 422 of 2017 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
3. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have
averred as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 19 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



a) The respondents have opposed both matters. By way of
preliminary objections in OA No. 1551/2021 , it is pleaded that
no legal, constitutional or statutory right of the applicants has
been infringed; that no enforceable cause of action has accrued
in their favour; and that the application involves disputed
questions of fact. Similar objections have been raised in TA No.
6590/2021, with the respondents seeking dismissal of the
proceedings.
b) On merits, the respondents do not dispute the creation of the
Forest Protection Force, enactment of the Act of 2001 or
notification of the Rules under SRO 264 of 2012. Their specific
stand, however, is that the applicants are essentially Class-IV
ministerial staff and their services are being utilized in that
capacity. The mere fact that they are occasionally deployed as
helpers in field operations or supplied uniforms and kit
maintenance allowance does not, according to the respondents,
make them members of the executive cadre for purposes of
promotion.
c) The respondents further contend that the Draft Recruitment
Rules relied upon by the applicants were merely
proposals/recommendations submitted to the competent
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 20 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



Government and never acquired statutory force. Consequently,
the proposed allocation of a part of the promotional quota of
FPF Guards to other Class-IV employees did not confer any
vested or enforceable right upon the applicants.
d) It is pleaded that the final statutory position is governed by
SRO 422 of 2017. Under those Rules, Orderlies, Chowkidars
and Safaiwalas have specifically been prescribed as feeding
categories for promotion to the posts of Junior Assistant and
Driver, whereas Watchers alone constitute the feeding category
for promotion to FPF Guard. The applicants, therefore, already
possess promotional avenues under the applicable Recruitment
Rules and cannot claim promotion to another cadre merely on
the basis of an earlier departmental proposal.
e) As regards the departmental recommendation made in favour of
the applicants, the respondents contend that such
recommendation does not create any enforceable right. It is
within the prerogative of the competent Government to accept
or reject departmental proposals while framing statutory
Recruitment Rules, keeping in view administrative
requirements and feasibility.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 21 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



f) The respondents have also justified Government Order No.
360-FST of 2012 dated 19.09.2012. According to them, the
status of Watchers had earlier become the subject matter of
judicial proceedings, pursuant to which a high-level Committee
comprising senior officers of the Forest Department, Forest
Protection Force and General Administration Department was
constituted. On the recommendations of the Committee and
with Cabinet approval, the aforesaid Government Order was
issued, whereby 512 posts of FPF Guard were downgraded for
adjustment of Watchers from the dates of their initial
appointments. Thus, according to the respondents, the
adjustment was made pursuant to judicial directions and a duly
approved governmental decision.
g) The respondents further distinguish the Recruitment Rules
governing the Forest Department from those governing the
Forest Protection Force. They submit that SRO 335 of 1991
pertains to the Forest Department, whereas the employees of the
Forest Protection Force are governed by SRO 264 of 2012 and
SRO 422 of 2017, which prescribe a distinct hierarchical
structure, service conditions and allowances. Therefore, the
promotional pattern applicable in the Forest Department cannot
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 22 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



automatically be extended to employees of the Forest
Protection Force.
h) With regard to the private respondents in OA No. 1551/2021 ,
the respondents maintain that their promotions from Watcher to
FPF Guard were made strictly in accordance with SRO 422 of
2017, which continues to remain in force and had not been
stayed or set aside by any competent Court. It is specifically
pleaded that no interim direction had been passed restraining
the Department from making such promotions during pendency
of the earlier writ proceedings.
i) The respondents, therefore, maintain that the applicants cannot
claim a vested right to be included in the feeding cadre for FPF
Guards merely because they perform certain field duties,
receive special allowances or were included in an earlier draft
proposal. According to them, promotional avenues are
governed exclusively by the notified statutory Recruitment
Rules, and the classification made therein is based upon
administrative requirements. Since Watchers perform field
duties alongside FPF Guards and are working against the
downgraded posts of FPF Guards, they have been retained as
the feeding cadre for promotion to the post of FPF Guard. On
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 23 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



these premises, the respondents seek dismissal of both the OA
and the TA.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. Since both these matters involve substantially identical questions of
fact and law concerning the promotional avenues of Class-IV
employees, namely Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas, working in
the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Protection Force, they are being
disposed of by this common order.
6. The controversy essentially lies in a narrow compass. The applicants
seek a promotional avenue to the post of FPF Guard on the premise
that they are enrolled members of the Force, are utilized in field and
operational duties and were, at one stage, proposed to be included as a
feeding source for promotion to the said post. The respondents, on the
other hand, rely upon the final statutory Recruitment Rules under
SRO 422 of 2017 , which provide a different promotional hierarchy.
7. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the Draft Recruitment Rules
relied upon by the applicants cannot, by themselves, create an
enforceable right to promotion. A proposal submitted during the
process of framing Recruitment Rules remains only a proposal until it
is accepted and incorporated into the statutory rules. The final
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 24 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



decision of the competent rule-making authority is reflected in SRO
422 of 2017. The Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial
review, cannot ordinarily substitute itself for the competent rule-
making authority and prescribe a particular source, percentage or
channel of recruitment or promotion. Creation and classification of
posts, constitution of cadres and determination of promotional
channels are matters primarily falling within the executive and rule-
making domain.
8. Therefore, merely because the Draft Recruitment Rules contemplated
a 20% share within the proposed promotional quota for other Class-IV
officials, it would not be legally permissible for this Tribunal to read
the same percentage into SRO 422 of 2017 or to direct that the
applicants be promoted as FPF Guards contrary to the existing
statutory Rules. However, the matter cannot be closed merely on that
consideration. Certain peculiar features of the present cases require
due consideration by the competent Government.
9. Firstly, the applicants are not seeking entry into an entirely unrelated
service. Their case is founded upon their existing service in the Forest
Protection Force and their asserted status as enrolled members under
the Rules of 2012. The record also indicates that the respondents
themselves acknowledge utilization of the applicants as helpers in
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 25 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



field operations and payment of special allowances admissible to
them.
10. Secondly, the Department itself had, while preparing the Draft
Recruitment Rules, considered it appropriate to provide a limited
promotional share to Class-IV officials other than Watchers. Though
such proposal cannot confer a vested right, it remains a relevant
circumstance while considering whether the present promotional
structure provides a fair and appropriate career progression to these
employees.
11. Thirdly, and more importantly, even after notification of SRO 422 of
2017, the departmental authority did not treat the grievance of the
applicants as wholly without substance. Vide communication dated
14.02.2018, their case was forwarded to the Government for
sympathetic consideration, specifically referring to the earlier
proposal under which other Class-IV employees were contemplated
for a share in the promotional quota of FPF Guards
12. The aforesaid recommendation may not bind the Government to
amend the Recruitment Rules, but it certainly constitutes relevant
material requiring consideration by the competent authority. The
grievance assumes greater significance when employees claim to have
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 26 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



served in the Force for more than two decades and contend that their
actual duties bear an operational component.
13. At the same time, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with
Government Order No. 360-FST of 2012. The material placed on
record indicates that the decision relating to Watchers followed earlier
judicial proceedings, constitution of a high-level Committee,
consideration of its recommendations and Cabinet approval. The
consequential adjustment cannot, therefore, be invalidated merely on
the premise that the applicants’ promotional prospects were thereby
diminished.
14. For similar reasons, the promotions already granted to the private
respondents cannot be disturbed. The promotions were effected under
SRO 422 of 2017 when the Rules were admittedly operative. The
respondents have specifically pleaded that there was no order
restraining the promotion process. In the absence of any interim
restraint or declaration invalidating the relevant Recruitment Rules,
promotions made thereunder cannot be treated as illegal merely
because the Rules themselves were under challenge.
15. We are also unable to accept the contention that the promotional
scheme applicable to Class-IV employees of the Forest Department
under SRO 335 of 1991 must necessarily be extended to the
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 27 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



applicants. The Forest Department and Forest Protection Force are
governed by separate Recruitment Rules. Mere similarity in certain
duties or designations cannot result in automatic application of the
promotional hierarchy of one service to another.
16. Nevertheless, providing meaningful avenues of career progression is
an important aspect of sound service administration. An employee
cannot demand promotion contrary to statutory rules, but a
longstanding grievance regarding the structure of promotional
avenues, particularly when supported by a recommendation of the
Head of Department, deserves an objective decision rather than
remaining unattended indefinitely.
17. Thus, the proper balance in the present cases would neither be to
strike down the statutory Recruitment Rules and judicially rewrite the
promotional channel, nor to reject the applicants’ grievance
altogether. The matter should appropriately be examined by the
competent Government, which alone is equipped to consider cadre
strength, functional requirements, qualifications, nature of duties,
promotional ratios and administrative feasibility and, if warranted,
undertake suitable amendment of the Recruitment Rules.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 28 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



18. In view of the foregoing discussion, OA No. 1551/2021 and TA No.
6590/2021 are partly allowed/disposed of with the following
directions:

a) The prayer for quashing SRO 422 of 2017 merely on the
ground that Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas have not
been included as a feeding cadre for promotion to the post of
FPF Guard is declined.
b) The challenge to Government Order No. 360-FST of 2012
dated 19.09.2012 is also declined.
c) The promotions already granted to the private
respondents/Watchers as FPF Guards shall remain undisturbed.
d) However, the competent authority in the Government shall
undertake a fresh and objective consideration of the grievance
of the applicants/petitioners regarding provision of an
appropriate promotional avenue in the Executive Cadre,
including the feasibility of providing an appropriate share in the
promotional quota for the post of FPF Guard to Orderlies,
Chowkidars and Safaiwalas of the Forest Protection Force.
e) While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the competent
authority shall specifically consider the departmental
communication No. DFPF/RR/29/Estt/9155 dated 14.02.2018,
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 29 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



the relevant provisions of SRO 264 of 2012 and SRO 422 of
2017, the status of the applicants as claimed enrolled members
of the Force, the nature of duties actually being discharged by
them, the allowances admissible to them, their length of
service, the existing promotional hierarchy and the overall
administrative requirements of the Force.
f) It shall be open to the competent authority, upon such
consideration, to examine whether any
amendment/modification in the Recruitment Rules is warranted.
This direction shall not be construed as a mandate to amend
SRO 422 of 2017 or as conferring an automatic right upon the
applicants to promotion as FPF Guards.
g) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed and a reasoned and
speaking order shall be passed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any final opinion
as to the percentage, quota or manner in which any additional
promotional avenue may be provided. These issues are left to the
competent authority to determine in accordance with law and
administrative requirements.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 30 :: OA 1551/2021 & TA 6590/2021



20. Both the matters stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
No or
der as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV