Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Per: Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member This Original Application has been filed seeking quashment of Annexures A9 and A11. By Annexure A9 dated 28.10.2016 the service of the applicant who was the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (for short PCCF) and Head of Forest Force (HoFF for short) was placed at the disposal of Science and Technology Department for being appointed as Director, KFRI on deputation basis. The post of Director, KFRI was declared equivalent in status and responsibility in the cadre post of PCCF and HoFF in the apex scale of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per IFS (Pay) Rules, 2007. It was further stated that the deputation will be governed by the terms and conditions prescribed in GO (P) No. 546/1980/GAD dated 1.12.1980.

2. One Shri Suresh Chandra Joshi IFS, PCCF (Vigilance) was put in full additional charge of the post of PCCF and HoFF. Annexure A-11 is the order dated 31.10.2016 issued pursuant to Annexure A-9 whereby the government equated the post of Director, KFRI with that of the cadre post of PCCF and HoFF in the apex scale of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per Rule 11 of IFS (Pay) Rules, 2007. Accordingly, the applicant was appointed as Director, KFRI, Peechy on deputation basis on the terms and conditions prescribed in Government order dated 01.12.1980.

'....The post of Director, KFRI is declared equivalent in status and responsibility to the cadre post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force in the apex scale of Rs. 2,25,000 (Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand only) as per Rule 11 of IFS (Pay) Rules, 2007.....'
26. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that mere declaration of a nature as mentioned above will not serve the purpose but it has to be tested with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the Head of Forest Force vis-a-vis the Director, KFRI. The status and duties of Head of Forest Force can never be compared to that of the Director, KFRI, the applicant contends. According to the respondents to discharge the functions of the Director, KFRI specialized experience is required and that is why the applicant was chosen to be posted as Director KFRI. The respondents would contend that when the Government after due deliberation declared that the post of KFRI is equivalent to that of PCCF and Head of Forest Force, that declaration cannot be simply ignored by the applicant stating that the duties and responsibilities of the two posts are different in nature. Here, it is not a case where the post was added temporarily to the cadre. The post was already in existence but it was made equivalent to that of PCCF/Head of Forest Force. According to the respondents since the government made a declaration that such a post is equivalent in status and responsibility to that of PCCF and Head of Forest Force, and when the applicant was appointed to that post, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in passing Annexure A9 order consequent to which Annexure A11 was issued.

Of course, it was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the State Government cannot artificially create equivalence by saying that a particular non-cadre post, whatever be the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to it, shall be in the rank or grade of any cadre post it lies and that the State Government has to apply its mind and make an objective assessment of the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties and determine which is the cadre post to which such non-cadre posts should be regarded equivalent in status and responsibility and then only it can make a declaration of equivalence. So far as the case on hand is concerned there is a clear declaration of equivalence in regard to the duties and responsibilities as can be seen from Annexure A9 dated 28.10.2016. Shri Mohanan the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though ultimately the relief as prayed for was not granted in Royappa's case, since the petitioner therein had accepted the appointment without demur as he thought that the post of Deputy Chairman was of the same rank and carried the same emoluments as the post of Chief Secretary so far as the case on hand is concerned the applicant joined the post of Director, KFRI subject to the objection raised by him and it was so recorded by this Tribunal also that his taking charge as Director KFRI would be subject to the final outcome of this OA. Therefore, it is not a case that he voluntarily accepted the post and took charge as Director, KFRI. Though there may be slight difference in the nature and responsibilities or the functions and duties attached to the two posts still it cannot be said that the posts are not equivalent.