Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash And Ors vs Forest on 30 October, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5946 of 2017
.....
1. Om Prakash
2. Udit Pal Bhagat
3. Bharatendu Kumar
4. Abel Hans
5. Nelhora Hora
6. John Chand Lakra
7. Prince
8. Birendra Kumar Sinha
9. Moti Lal Oraon
10. Md. Israrul Haque .... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand,
2. The Secretary, Forest and Environment and Climate Change Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi.
3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Ban Bhawan, Ranchi
4. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation,
Argora, Ranchi.
` .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhas Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shubham Mishra, J.C. to G.P. V
02 / Dated 30
th
October, 2017
Petitioners have approached this court with a prayer for grant
of ACP/MACP to the petitioners which has never been provided to the
petitioners till date. Further prayer has been made for grant of benefits
of ACP and MACP as similarly situated persons have already been
considered and granted the benefits.
Factual Matrix:
Petitioners were appointed as Forest Produce Supervisors and
the said post has been upgraded on 01.03.1988 as Forest Produce
Inspector, though the nomenclature is same, the petitioners are working
in the Head office of respondent as Range Officers/Forest Produce
Inspectors. It has been stated that Forest Produce Inspectors while
working in the field are also termed as Range Officer whereas while
working in the Head Office they are termed as Forest Produce Inspector
and the pay scale, work and duty are the same. The petitioners were
employees of erstwhile Bihar State Forest Development Corporation
Limited, which is a corporation under the Companies Act, 1956 for
which the certificate of registration was issued on 10.02.1975 and the
said corporation has its own Article of Association. The Bihar State was
carved out and new State i.e. State of Jharkhand was created on
15.11.2000and therefore, the employee who were working in the territory of State of Jharkhand were made to continue to serve in the State of Jharkhand and thereafter the State of Jharkhand constituted the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. on 23.3.2002.
In view of the policy decision of the two Chief Secretaries of both the State i.e. State of Bihar and Jharkhand, a decision was taken and it was held that on the basis of "as and where basis" the petitioners became employees of JSFDC. It has been further stated that the Article of Association of Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and bare perusal of Clause 57 (d)(v), it is very clear that until the corporation frames its own regulations, all the matters connected with service will be guided by the Jharkhand Service Rule, Jharkhand Civil Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, Government servant Conduct Rule, Recruitment Rule and other service rules and regulations enforced in the State of Jharkhand from time to time, hence the decision of the State Government is binding upon JSFDC.
It has been further stated that from the letter dated 22.3.2017, the recommendation has been made for grant of ACP/MACP to the employees who were working since 27 to 30 years. It is further case of the petitioners that vide letter dated 27.12.2016 issued by the Joint Secretary, a request was made to the PCCF cum Managing Director for consideration of the case along with the recommendation made by the OSD to the Chief Minister. In view of the aforesaid recommendations petitioners made representation for consideration of their cases for grant of ACP and MACP. The Deputy Secretary on 22.03.2013 requested the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation to take their own decision for grant of ACP and MACP in terms of the Finance Department Circulars. It is specific case of the petitioners that similarly situated persons on 11.2.2012 has been granted the benefits of ACP/MACP but the cases of the petitioners have not been considered and hence this writ petition has been preferred.
Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urges that petitioners are entitled for the benefits of ACP and MACP and in absence of any specific rules formulated by the concerned Commission, the petitioners' service conditions are also guided by the Jharkhand State Service Rules and as the petitioners have already completed 12 years/24 years of services, they are entitled for consideration of their case for grant of ACP/MACP benefits. Learned counsel places reliance on the case of similarly situated persons who have been considered and granted benefits of ACP/MACP.
Per contra, no counteraffidavit has been filed. Mr. Prabhas Kumar appearing for respondent no. 4 very fairly submits that in absence of any counteraffidavit he is not in a position to state that how the cases of similarly situated persons were considered and granted the benefits of ACP/MACP. Mr. Prabhas Kumar, appearing for respondent no. 4 vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that Annexure 8 is not applicable in the case of petitioners as it is related to the Range Forest Officer who were appointed directly in the Forest Department and these petitioners have been promoted on the post of Range Officers and they are not employees of the corporation.
Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that since similarly situated persons have already been considered and granted the benefits of ACP holding the similar post though it has been disputed by the respondents that direct recruits and promoted to the post are not entitled for the same benefits.
As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules/guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioners and pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioners and if the petitioners are found entitled for the benefits of ACP/MACP in accordance with law. The same may be granted to them within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Needless to say that if the petitioners are not found entitled for the same, a reasoned order will be passed and communicated to the petitioners.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Pallavi/