Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Coram : Hon Ble Ms. Shyama Dogra vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 16 November, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH. O.A.NO.955-HR-2010 Decided on : November 16,2010 CORAM : HONBLE MS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) AND HONBLE MR. KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER (A). Kishan Lal Manhas, IFS, Managing Director, Haryana Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Sector-4, Panchkula. Applicant By : Self. Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. State of Haryana through Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Forest Department, Chandigarh. By : None. Respondents ORDER (ORAL)
HONBLE MS.SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) Heard applicant in person. Before filing the present O.A. the applicant had filed an O.A.No. 411-HR-2010 titled K.L. Manhas vs. Union of India & Others, challenging the order dated 4.2.2010 by which the applicant, while working as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) was ordered to be posted as the Managing Director, Haryana Forest Development Corporation, Panchkula. The said O.A. was dismissed on 25.5.2010 (Annexure A-11) by passing the following orders:
3. After hearing the applicant in person and perusal of the order passed by Annexure A-1, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to convince this Court that while directing the applicant to function as MD, HFDC, Pkl, the respondents have discriminated or down graded him as both the posts undisputedly are equivalent. It has specifically been mentioned in the order that the post of MD, HDFC, Pkl has already been declared equivalent in status and responsibilities to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests included in Schedule-III to Rule 9(1) of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 1968. Applicant has not challenged the equivalency of these posts. Since both the posts carry same pay scale and same status, we are of the view that the both the posts are equivalent and there is no illegality in the order Annexure A-1 passed by the respondents. The averment of the applicant that he being senior most has a right to be retained at the post of PCCF is not acceptable in view of the fact that both the posts have been declared equivalent and the same has specifically been mentioned in the impugned order.
4. In view of the above findings, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents.
2. With the above observations and findings, the Original Application filed by the applicant was dismissed.
3. Now the applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the order dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure A-1) vide which the post of MD, HDFC has been declared as equivalent to the post of PCCF. Apparently, this course of action is not at all open to the applicant as the claim raised by him in the earlier O.A.No. 511-HR-2010 stands dismissed on two grounds, namely that the equivalency of the post was not challenged by the applicant and secondly that both the posts carry same pay scale and status and as such there is no illegality in the order of transfer.
4. It is further observed that the respondents are fully vested with the powers under relevant rule 4 (2) of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 to make equivalency of two papers. Relevant Rule 4 (2) of the Cadre Rules is reproduced as under:
4(2) The Central Government shall, at the interval of every three years, re-examine the strength and composition of each such cadre in consultation with the State Government concerned and may make such alterations therein as it deems fit:
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to effect the power of the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any other time:
Provided further that the State Government concerned may add for a period not exceeding one year, and with the approval of the central government for a further period not exceeding two years to a State or Joint Cadre one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts.
5. The applicant has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to him by this equivalency of post which will be in force only for a short period. Therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash these provisions as prayed for by the applicant as the Rule making authority have formulated these Rules taking into consideration the administrative requirements needed from time to time.
6. Resultantly, since the applicant has failed to make out prima facie case in his favour, we do not find this case fit for issuing notice o the respondents and the O.A. being found to be devoid of merits is herby dismissed in limine and admission stage with no order as to costs.
(KHUSHI RAM) (MRS.SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: November 16, 2010 HC* - 4 - O.A.No. 955-HR-2010