Bombay High Court
Vijayshankar Rammanohar Singh vs The Central Administrative & 60 Others on 16 June, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp4950.03 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4950 OF 2003
Vijayshankar Rammanohar Singh,
aged about 59 years, occupation-
Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Transport & Marketing Division,
Ballarshaw, District - Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Central Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,
Mumbai.
2. The Union of India
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment &
Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan,
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary,
Revenue & Forests Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ... RESPONDENTS
Respondent Nos. 4 to 61 ... Deleted as per Dy. Registrar's
(in-charge Registrar Judicial)
order dated 12.12.2003.
Shri M.M. Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. M.R. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for respondent No. 3.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
JUNE 16, 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 :::
wp4950.03 2
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
The petitioner has approached this Court in the backdrop of an earlier adjudication in Writ Petition No. 1712 of 1999 by the Division Bench of this Court (Vijayshankar Rammanohar Singh vs. Union of India & Anr.). That writ petition assailed the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1471 of 1995. The petitioner had sought setting aside of order dated 11.01.1994 issued by the Government of India, communicating to him the order of allotment to Indian Forest Service (I.F.S.).
He further wanted relief of consideration of his entitlement to be promoted to Indian Foreign Service cadre after he had put in 8 years of service in Maharashtra cadre i.e. from 01.04.1976.
The last relief sought for was of considering his entitlement every year with relation to vacancies available in that year.
2. Shri Sudame, learned counsel submits that the vacancies becoming available from 1976 till 1987 were pooled together and in one process along with several others, entitlement of the petitioner has been examined.
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 ::: wp4950.03 33. We have accordingly heard Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court mentioned supra and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2078 of 1992 decided on 24.12.1997 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Jawla Prasad & Ors., reported at (1998) 9 SCC
474). This judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is considered by the Division Bench mentioned supra while deciding Writ Petition No. 1712 of 1999 on 01.10.1999.
4. Shri Joshi, learned AGP appearing for respondent No. 3 and Mrs. Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 have relied upon the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal and supported it.
5. The petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1966 as Assistant Conservator of Forest in the Maharashtra cadre. He completed his training and joined the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest at Chandrapur, on 01.04.1968. He completed two years of probation on 31.03.1970. In this ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 ::: wp4950.03 4 background, according to Shri Sudame, learned counsel, the petitioner ought to have been considered for his promotion to Indian Forest Service cadre after completion of eight years of service i.e. after 01.04.1976. The petitioner has been promoted as the Divisional Forest Officer in I.F.S. cadre on 15.10.1987.
As per notification dated 31.08.1992, he has been confirmed in that cadre on that post from 15.10.1988 itself. By order dated 11.01.1994, his year of allotment and seniority in adherence to quota rule has been determined as 15.10.1987. It is after this order dated 11.01.1994 that the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1471 of 1995.
6. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 2078 of 1992, decided on 24.12.1997 shows that there the dispute was of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in Indian Forest Service. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that until and unless the year of allotment is first declared, such a dispute cannot be appropriately examined. This judgment is looked into by the ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 ::: wp4950.03 5 Division Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation and the matter was sent back after observing that when the Central Government chose to allot the year of allotment in the year 1994 with retrospective effect from 1987, the petitioner could not have been held responsible for delay and laches. Thus, the earlier judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 22.02.1999 in O.A. No. 1417 of 1995 was set aside.
7. The Central Administrative Tribunal has thereafter reconsidered the controversy and found that the argument before it was of non consideration after eight years of service.
This argument and the relief claimed accordingly have been evaluated and it has been held that O.A. was filed belatedly.
8. The promotion given to the petitioner in I.F.S. cadre on 15.10.1987 was never in dispute. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to that promotion from an earlier date.
This was by placing reliance upon Regulation 5(2), third proviso of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,1966. The third proviso on which Shri ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 ::: wp4950.03 6 Sudame, learned counsel, has placed reliance, reads as under :
"Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Forest Service unless on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared, he is substantive in the State Forest Service and has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in post(s) included in the State Forest Service."
Thus, the petitioner has to demonstrate that on the first day of January of the year, for which Select List was prepared, he was substantive in State Forest Service and in addition, had also completed not less than eight years of continuous service in that cadre.
9. Here, it is no doubt true that the petitioner completed eight years of continuous service on 01.04.1976.
However, as per order of confirmation of officers in Maharashtra Forest Service Class - II dated 11.02.1985, he has been confirmed in the Maharashtra Forest Service Class - II on 06.04.1979. This communication or date was never in dispute before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, before ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 ::: wp4950.03 7 January 1980, name of the petitioner did not figure as substantive employee in the State Forest Service. Hence, for the first time in January 1980, when his name figured as substantive in the cadre in the State service, as he had also completed eight years of continuous service by then, his entitlement to be promoted to I.F.S. cadre could have been looked into. The petitioner has been promoted to IFS cadre on 15.10.1987. Thus, on 15.10.1987, the petitioner was aware that his entitlement to that promotion from January 1980 should have been looked into. In fact, cause of action for demanding such consideration arose on 11.02.1985 itself.
After 11.02.1985, the petitioner did not make any efforts to have his name considered, he accepted promotion to I.F.S. on 15.10.1987.
10. The order dated 11.01.1994 fixes the date of promotion of officers to the Maharashtra cadre of Indian Foreign Services and in it, in the case of the petitioner that date is fixed as 15.10.1987. This communication, therefore, does not give rise to any new cause of action to the petitioner. The ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 ::: wp4950.03 8 petitioner never questioned determination of inter se seniority of promotees to I.F.S. cadre vis-a-vis direct cadres. He wanted his berth in I.F.S. cadre from an earlier date.
11. In this situation, we find that the Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly appreciated the contention and found that there was delay in approaching it.
12. There is not jurisdiction error or perversity. No case is made out. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:03 :::