Telangana High Court
Tenali Srinivasa Rao vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 22319 OF 2019
O R D E R:
Petitioners' question the action of Respondents 3 and 4 in retrenching the contractual forest strike force/ check post/ base camp and watch dog staff as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to petitioners, retrenchment has been undertaken without reasonable cause and this attempt is being made to replace them with new contractual employees. Hence, they seek to reinstate them into service with back wages and regularisation of their services.
2. The case of petitioners, contractual forest strike force, check post, base camp and watch dog staff, were recruited through various contractual agencies engaged by Respondents 3 and 4. As per records from October 2015, the forest cover in Telangana spans 20,419 square kilometers, constituting 18.22% of the State's geographical area. Protection of this forest cover necessitates extensive manpower. It is stated, respondents engaged personnel through contractual arrangements by paying meagre salaries and compensations, assigning them duties such as beat work, strike force deployment and base camp surveillance.
2
It is the case of petitioners, while discharging their duties, they have been subjected to extreme and inhumane working conditions without proper equipment, training or protective gear. They have encountered dangerous wild animals, poachers and even hostile locals, including tribals and agriculturalists, in the course of their work. Several petitioners suffered injuries due to attacks by wild animals and poachers. Petitioners worked without social security benefits or other entitlements available to government servants. Despite their crucial role in forest conservation and protection, they have been denied fair wages and service benefits.
It is the further case of petitioners that in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 30.10.2002 in I.A. No.566 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995, the 2nd respondent constituted the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), i.e. the 5th respondent. This Authority was created to manage funds towards compensatory afforestation, net present value (NPV), and other recoverable amounts. Respondents 3 and 4 subsequently established the 6th respondent - Telangana State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority to utilize funds received towards compensatory 3 afforestation, NPV, and other purposes related to forest and wildlife conservation. Petitioners were compensated with minimal salaries from the funds received by the 6th respondent from the 5th respondent. Despite the availability of substantial funds, Respondents 5 and 6 have resorted to downsizing the contractual workforce through dubious methods, citing shortage of funds from CAMPA. However, records indicate that a large sum remains unutilized with the authorities concerned.
Petitioners' grievance is that Respondents 3 and 4 have purportedly decided to cease further expenditure on contractual forest staff based on a communication from the 5th respondent and this decision was conveyed through communication dated 11.07.2019. Consequently, orders were issued to rationalize the Base Camp/Strike Force/Check Posts manpower through communication dated 27.07.2019. In addition, recruitment for the posts of Forest Section Officers and Forest Beat Officers was ongoing simultaneously. Petitioners contend that the 4th respondent sought to unfairly eliminate existing contractual staff by enforcing strenuous physical fitness tests, including a 25 km. walk, without providing necessary infrastructure or facilities which were deliberately introduced to terminate their services and reduce costs despite 4 the availability of adequate funds with Respondents 5 and 6. Retrenchment has resulted in severe hardship for them, leaving them and their families without income or social security, laments petitioners. It is stated that petitioners learnt through reliable sources that Respondents 3 and 4 are now recruiting fresh contractual employees through outsourcing agencies, having systematically retrenched them under false pretences. This has been communicated through letter dated 30.09.2019, which scheduled a screening test for new contractual Protection Watchers of Base Camps on 02.10.2019. This action, petitioners state, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The Respondents' claim of financial constraints is unfounded, given the substantial funds available with CAMPA and the Telangana State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. In the counter filed by the Assistant Inspector General of Forests, Government of India on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5, it is stated that for conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, the Parliament enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act'). It is stated, petitioners claimed that salaries paid to them by the 5 contract agencies were from the funds received from the 6th respondent which were acquired by the State from the 5th respondent. However, the alleged retrenchment so done is due to the shortage of CAMPA funds from Respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that as per sub-clause 4 (a) of Clause 5 of Compensatory Afforestation Fund Rules, 2018, monies referred to in sub-rule (1) shall not be used for payment of salary, travelling allowances, medical expenses, etcetera to regular, contractual and casual employees of the State Forest Department for implementing programmes in various forest divisions undertaken from the State Fund. CAMPA funds can be utilized only for the above stated activities as per the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 and CAMPA Rules 2018. Ultimately, it is stated, the instant case is a matter of retrenchment by contractual agencies, hence, Central Government has no role in the matter.
4. The 4th respondent filed counter stating that petitioners, as admitted by them, were neither recruited nor posted by the Forest Department against any vacancies; their services are provided by the outsourcing agencies concerned only as and when needed by the department. Due to large vacancies in the forest department, services of outsourcing agencies are engaged for providing manpower to assist the 6 working staff for protection of forest and wildlife. Now since the recruitment of field level staff is completed, the District Forest Officers / Forest Divisional Officers were requested to rationalise the manpower provided by the outsourcing agencies.
Drawing attention to the terms and conditions of agreement with the successful contractual agency for supply of manpower, the 4th respondent states that tenders were invited by the District Forest Officers concerned from eligible outsourcing agencies to provide manpower for assisting forest staff in forest protection as per the requirement for a period of one year. The duties and responsibilities were clearly mentioned in the tender documents. Accordingly, eligible outsourcing agencies at the District level provided the manpower available with them on an outsourcing basis to the respective Forest Divisions. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, payments were made to the outsourcing agencies. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioners that Forest Department is responsible for their employment and service conditions is incorrect and baseless. The Forest Department is in no way concerned regarding their service as they were provided by the outsourcing agencies only.
It is further stated that due to large vacancies in the Forest Department, services of outsourced manpower were 7 utilized to assist the regular staff in forest and wildlife protection. However, with the recruitment of 2014 field staff members and the joining of 1401 officers, rationalization of outsourced manpower became necessary. Therefore, Circle-level Committees were directed to rationalize the outsourced manpower in respective Districts and Divisions in compliance with the Circular instruction dated 09-06-2017.
5. In the reply to counter of Respondents 1 to 5, petitioners state that outsourcing agency engaged in recruitment process is merely a recruiting agency and its role is limited to carrying out the recruitment. Once recruitment is completed, the role of the outsourcing agency ceases, and the responsibility of employing petitioners falls upon the respondent organization. Consequently, they become employees of the respondent organization and not employees of the recruiting agency. The respondents, therefore, cannot shift the burden of employment onto the outsourcing agency merely because the recruitment was conducted through such an agency. The identity cards issued to the petitioners clearly designate them as employees of the respondent organization, thereby affirming the employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents. According to petitioners, failure to furnish specific reasons for retrenchment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and in 8 violation of principles of natural justice. Additionally, petitioners emphasize that their termination has been carried out without following due process, and in complete disregard of the statutory and contractual obligations binding on the respondents. The respondents have neither issued any proper notice nor conducted any fair hearing before effecting the retrenchment. This blatant disregard for legal procedures and fairness underscores the mala fide intention behind the downsizing exercise.
6. In response to the counter filed by the 4th respondent, petitioner stated that Respondents 3 and 4, based on an alleged directive from the 5th respondent, decided to cease incurring further expenditure on the forest protection workforce. This decision was made despite the fact that the 5th respondent possessed substantial funds that could have been allocated for the continued engagement of employees. In this regard, a communication dated 11-07-2019 was issued by the 4th respondent, conveying the decision not to continue funding the forest protection workforce. It is further submitted that during the same period, the recruitment of Forest Section Officers and Forest Beat Officers was actively being conducted, demonstrating that financial constraints were not the actual reason for the retrenchment. Additionally, the 4th respondent 9 illegally issued orders to rationalize the Base Camp/Strike Force/Check Post manpower vide communication dated 27-07-2019. Petitioners contend that instead of hiring new candidates, Respondents ought to have regularized their services, as they had already gained considerable experience and had been effectively discharging their duties.
It is stated, petitioners were assigned duties by the Respondents, and their work was supervised and regulated by the Respondents' officers. All of these factors unequivocally establish that the petitioners were indeed employees of the Respondents, and any claim to the contrary is merely an attempt to evade legal obligations.
7. Ms. B. Rachana, learned counsel for petitioners, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh 1, contends that a temporary employee should not be replaced by another temporary employee.
8. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I on behalf of the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Forests on behalf of Respondents 4 to 6, Ms. Sampada, learned 1 1992 AIR 2130 10 Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent and learned Government Pleader for General Administration for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.
9. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties, this Court finds that petitioners were engaged in essential forest protection services under precarious conditions on contractual basis. Now, Respondents 3 and 4 have purportedly decided to cease further expenditure on contractual forest staff based on a communication from the 5th respondent, as is evident from the communication dated 11.07.2019 and consequently, orders were issued to rationalize the Base Camp/Strike Force/Check Posts manpower through communication dated 27.07.2019. However, vide communication dated 30.09.2019, Respondents 3 and 4 are now recruiting fresh contractual employees through outsourcing agencies and it scheduled a screening test for new contractual Protection Watchers of Base Camps on 02.10.2019. It demonstrates that financial constraints were not the actual reason for retrenchment. Further, the material on record does not disclose that petitioners' termination was carried out duly following the process; respondents have neither issued proper notice nor conducted fair hearing before affecting retrenchment. 11 Petitioners were admittedly, discharging duties assigned to them and their services ought to have been continued, instead of recruiting other contractual employees. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra) is very clear. It reads as under:
" The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employees.
Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority."
In view of the settled legal position, it can safely be held that the attempts of Respondents 3 and 4 to engage the services of protection watchers for Base Camps on outsourcing basis, through the communication dated 30.09.2019 are illegal and arbitrary.
10. Apart from that, it is to be observed that petitioners were engaged for years in hazardous and essential duties, yet 12 they were retrenched without proper justification. Their sudden retrenchment, coupled with the recruitment of fresh contractual employees, indicates unfair labour practice. In the light of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing respondents to reinstate the retrenched petitioners into service. No costs.
12. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 11th February 2025 ksld