Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1079 of 2001
PETITIONER:
State of Orissa & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
All Orissa Forestry Ext. Officers Assoc. & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2004
BENCH:
Ruma Pal & Arun Kumar
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
ARUN KUMAR, J.
The forest service in the State of Orissa was constituted
under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Madras Forest Act,
1882. However, in 1972 the State had its own Forest Act. The
primary object of the legislation was protection and management
of forests in the State. The words ’forest officer’ have been
defined under the Act to mean persons whom the State
Government, or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, may
appoint to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. A forest
officer would include the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as
well as subordinates like Conservator of Forests, Forest Range
Officers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters. In the year 1979 the State
of Orissa adopted the Antyodaya Programme of the Central
Government. Under the said programme Social Forestry Projects
were undertaken which envisaged contact with the poorest of poor
farmers to educate and train them in matters connected with
farming. For purpose of the Social Forestry Projects, ex cadre
posts of Forestry Extension Officers (for short ’FEOs’) were
created by the State Government. These were project related posts
and their expenses were met from special funds raised for the
project. The project was for specific purpose and for a specific
period and was funded by the Central Government. The duration
of the project was, however, extended from time to time in order to
fulfil its objective.
The recruitment for the posts of FEOs was to be made from
the open market. The officers were to be given training in raising
of seedlings, nursery work etc. so that when they go to the field
they could properly motivate and educate the farmers. The
minimum qualification prescribed for FEOs was Intermediate with
Botany as a subject. After recruitment these officers were to be
posted in blocks wherein forestry extension work was undertaken.
Certain blocks within the State were selected for such extension
work as a part of the Forestry Extension Programme. The FEOs
were envisaged as somebody remaining in touch with small
farmers at the lowest level in each village block and assessing their
requirements of forest species and other species.
The respondents were recruited as Forestry Extension
Officers under the Project from 1979 onwards. The respondents
claim that they should be treated as part of the forest service under
the Forest Department of the State Government and the posts held
by them should have equal pay and equal status with the equal
level posts in the Forest Department. They further claim that the
posts held by them should be included in the channel of promotion
to higher posts in the forest Department. The grievance of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
respondents is that they have been stagnating in the posts of FEOs
to which they were recruited nearly twenty years ago. According
to them though the project has senior level posts of Social Forestry
Supervisors but these posts are being filled by getting officers from
forest service of the State Government on deputation, thereby the
posts are being denied to them. In the matter of pay scales the
grievance of the FEOs is that they are being equated with foresters
who are neither as qualified as they are nor the foresters discharge
such important functions as they are discharging. The minimum
educational qualification prescribed for the post of forester in the
quota meant for direct recruits at the relevant time was
Matriculation only. The FEOs are trained to motivate people
under Social Forestry Projects which requires contact with
individual farmers and working at the grass root level. On the
other hand, officers of the Forest Department of the State are
mainly concerned with protecting forests, including forest
property, preventing illegal felling of trees, keeping a check on
forest contractors in order to ensure that forest produce is not
illegally exploited and removed, prevention of poaching of forest
animals etc..
In the year 1990, some of the Forest Extension Officers
(FEOs) approached the Orrisa Administrative Tribunal for
purposes of relief with regard to the above demands. In fact,
before approaching the Tribunal they had made representation to
the Government which did not yield any result. This Original
Application was disposed of by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal
vide order dated 7.9.1995. The Tribunal noted that the government
was alive to the grievance being aired by the FEOs. It directed the
State Government to decide the question of fixation of pay scales
of FEOs within six months. The Association of the FEOs was
allowed an opportunity to be heard by the officers of the State
Government who would be taking such a decision on behalf of the
government. The Tribunal further observed that when the question
of pay scales would be considered, the question of promotional
avenues should also be taken into consideration. It appears that
nothing happened in pursuance of the said direction of the
Tribunal. The Association of FEOs again approached the Tribunal
by way of an application in the year 1996. The main grievance of
the Association was that inspite of the FEOs being well qualified,
they were being made to stagnate as there were no chances of
promotion to higher posts available for them. The other grievance
was about not getting appropriate scale of pay. The respondents
claim that they should be treated as equivalent to Forest Rangers
and the scale of pay and service benefits given to Forest Rangers
should be available to them also.
The Tribunal noted that the nature of duties performed by
FEOs and the Foresters could not be compared because the two
were entirely different. Similarly, the method of recruitment and
the basic qualifications required for eligibility to the two posts
were different. However, the grievance of the FEOs could not be
overlooked. Undoubtedly, the FEOs were not getting any chances
of promotion nor they were getting the pay scales commensurate to
the duties and functions being performed by them. Having regard
to these aspects the Tribunal directed that those FEOs who have
put in more than ten years of service as FEOs should be treated at
par with the post of Deputy Ranger in the state forest service and
placed in the same scale of pay which is now applicable to Deputy
Rangers. They should also be made eligible for promotion to the
posts of Forest Rangers. Those FEOs who have put in less than ten
years of service may be treated at par with Foresters and be made
eligible for promotion as Deputy Rangers. The Tribunal noted that
it was stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Government in the proceedings before the Tribunal that steps were
being taken for movement of the FEOs to other divisions so as to
induct them into the mainstream. The Tribunal expected that this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
movement should start which would result in FEOs with more than
ten years of service being posted as Deputy Rangers when they are
moved from Social Forestry Section and others should be posted as
Foresters. In view of the averments in the counter affidavit the
Tribunal recommended to the State Government that the exercise
in terms of the above directions should start without further delay
so as to equip the FEOs for their induction into the mainstream
whenever the Social Forestry Welfare Scheme is abolished. The
order of the Tribunal also contained a direction that in future
vacancies for Forest Rangers and Deputy Rangers quotas should be
earmarked for FEOs with more than ten years of service and FEOs
with less than ten years of service respectively. The Tribunal
directed the State Government to complete the exercise within four
weeks.
The State Government issued an order on 19th May, 1998
carrying out the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of
the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Those Forest Extension
Officers who had put in more than ten years of service were to be
treated at par with Deputy Rangers and placed in the same pay
scale i.e. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040. Since out of 105 Forestry
Extension Officers, 100 had already completed more than ten years
of service as FEOs they were to be declared Senior Grade Forestry
Extension Officers and were to be made eligible for promotion to
the post of Forest Ranger. Those FEOs who had rendered less than
ten years of service were to be treated at par with Foresters. The
order contained further details about how the various quotas were
to be worked out and postings were to be made.
One of the Foresters, under an apprehension that FEOs
belonging to the Social Forestry Projects were being merged with
the mainstream forest service of the State, approached the State
Administrative Tribunal in the year 1998 seeking a declaration that
Forestry Extension Officer do not belong to the cadre of the state
forest service and that they should not be promoted to the posts of
Deputy Rangers. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal was
that the Social Forestry Project was a project scheme and the FEOs
appointed under that scheme held ex-cadre posts. They were
appointed to execute the Project and, therefore, they had nothing to
do with regular forest service under the State Government. Since
they were holding ex-cadre posts they could not claim promotion
to the posts under the cadre. The Tribunal in its order dated 27th
January, 1999 found that the apprehension of the petitioner before
it was totally misplaced. The Forestry Extension Officers
were being given only the pay scales of the equivalent posts in the
State Government. Giving equivalent pay scales did not mean that
they were being merged with the forest service of the State
Government. Similarly regarding their promotions to the posts of
Senior Social Forestry Extension Officer, their identity was being
kept separate. The equivalence was provided only qua the scales
of pay. The Tribunal noted:
"6. There is nothing in the letter of 19th May,
1998 to show that at any point of time the posts of
Social Forestry Extension Officers or Senior Grade
Social Forestry Extension Officers on one side and
the Deputy Rangers and Foresters on the other
have been made interchangeable posts. In order to
give incentive to the Extension Officers only a
separate channel of promotion has been creatd for
them. Neither an Extension Officer can claim a
post of Deputy Ranger nor a Forester can claim the
post of Senior Grade Forestry Extension Officer."
The Tribunal further observed:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
"7. However, in sub-para (i) of paragraph 1 of
the said letter there is an observation that the
forestry Extension Officer with more than 10 years
of service should be posted as Deputy Ranger
when it is proposed to move them out of the
Social Forestry Directorate and others having less
than ten years of service may be posted as
Foresters. We are of the vie that since the
government do not intend to make the posts
interchangeable, this observation cannot be
accepted as reasonable. Until the Extension
Officers and Senior Extension Officers are
regularly absorbed in the cadre of Foresters and
Deputy Rangers and Rangers, they cannot be
allowed to hold the posts of Ranger/Deputy
Ranger or Forester. We, therefore, advise the State
Government to frame a scheme or rules for their
absorption in the Forest Department in the event of
the abolition of the Directorate of Social Forestry.
Until then, the Extension Officers shall not be
brought over to the cadre of Foresters and Deputy
Rangers. In case the Government desire that the
Senior Grade Forest Extension Officer should also
have further promotional facility, it is open to the
State Government to consider and create
appropriate promotional posts for them."
The above order was passed on 27th January, 1999. The State
Government filed a Special Leave Petition in this Court
challenging the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 5th March, 1997
in the first week of November, 2000 without even making a
reference to the subsequent order dated 27th January, 1999. Thus
the order dated 27th January, 1999 has not been challenged by any
party. Leave to appeal was granted in the Special Leave Petition
and the matter was registered as Civil Appeal No.1079 of 2001
which is being disposed of by this order.
During the pendency of this Civil Appeal the Government of
Orrisa passed a resolution dated 8th August, 2003 re-organising the
field establishments of the Forest and Environment Department
under the ’Forestry and Wildlife’ wing by abolishing the
Afforestation and Social Forestry Division and Circles and creating
a number of Territorial and Wildlife Divisions and Circles.
Further the resolution abolishes certain establishments including
the Social Forestry Department. The staff of the Departments
which were being abolished was deployed within the remaining
establishments. The said resolution provides that the Government
had decided to abolish eighteen establishments under the control of
Director, Social Forestry Project with which we are concerned in
the present case. With the abolition of eighteen establishments of
Social Forestry Project, the staff of the establishments is to be
deployed in the Divisions/Circles/State Forest Headquarters as per
the plan given in the resolution. The resolution came into effect on
the date it was issued i.e. 8th August, 2003 and provides that the
reorganization exercise was to be completed by 30th September,
2003. The exercise had started and in pursuance thereof a Memo
dated 24.10.2003 was issued. None of the parties appearing before
us have disputed the said resolution. In fact, an affidavit was filed
in the present proceedings on behalf of the respondent Association
bringing the said resolution on record. The respondents further
stated that in view of the resolution dated 8th August, 2003 the
points sought to be raised by the Government in the present appeal
were no longer available to it. By the said resolution the members
of the respondent-association i.e. Forest Extension Officers (FEOs)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
who were working under the Social Forestry Projects had been
taken into the mainstream i.e. into the Forest Department of the
Government of Orissa called the Territorial and Wildlife Division.
The Social Forestry Directorate stands abolished. It is a resolution
of the State Government. Naturally the learned counsel for the
appellant, i.e. the State of Orissa accepts the resolution. In view of
these developments the FEOs have ceased to be officers working
against a particular project. They have become part of the forest
service of the State Government. Their grievances do not survive
any more. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for
some of the forest service officers who had intervened in these
proceedings. He has tried to canvas that the position of his clients
should not be adversely affected due to the merger. As at present
he could not spell out any cause for worry for his clients. In any
case, in the event of any prejudice being caused to the interveners,
they will have independent cause of action for which they are free
to pursue their remedies. So far as the State Government is
concerned, it is bound by its resolution and, in fact, has taken steps
to implement the same. Nothing survives in this appeal. The same
is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.