Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Inordinate delay of 403 days has not been explained properly. Permission to file SLP is declined. Special leave petition is dismissed. In the backdrop of the facts as fully detailed above, present two Original Applications bearing OA Nos.358/2008 and 1120/2008 have been filed. Even though, as mentioned above, the background of the two cases may be same, the reliefs asked for are not identical. The relevant facts of both Applications would thus need necessary mention.

3. While referring to establishment of Forest Research Institute in the year 1906, which was reorganized into ICFRE under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, and the objective behind the reorganization, it has inter alia been pleaded that in the year 1986, when the reorganization took place, a resolution was passed by the Government of India, MoEF on 31.12.1986 wherein it was provided that the institution would be developed on the lines of other scientific institutions and the personnel policies would also be comparable to that of other scientific institutions in order to attract best talent to the institution. The said objective was, however, not followed in its true spirit inasmuch as the council and its staff members were never treated at par with those of other scientific institutions, such as ICAR and CSIR, and the UGC pattern which was made applicable to ICAR, was not made applicable in the case of ICFRE or its constituent institutes, like FRI University. On 5.6.1990, the respondents came up with a proposal to grant autonomy to the ICFRE and its institutes and a note for the Cabinet was prepared for approval. The idea behind the grant of autonomy was that the ICFRE and its management committee, which were only advisory in nature, required autonomy so that for every decision the management need not refer the same to nodal Ministry. The counsel was to be run on the same lines as ICAR and CSIR, as would be evident from para 4 of the note for the Cabinet, which also deals with creation of scientific posts, finalization of recruitment rules and functional freedom to ICFRE and its institutes. The said note was finally approved by the Cabinet on 5.6.1990 (Annexure A-3). It is the case of the applicants that these documents were suppressed by the respondents and they have all along denied existence of the same on affidavits, and that the said documents have now been received by the applicants from MoEF under RTI in the year 2006. Vide order dated 30.5.1991, in pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the respondents constituted the ICFRE as an autonomous institution and the staff and employees under ICFRE were treated as on compulsory deputation with the Society, with service conditions protected and also provided for seeking option from the employees concerned for becoming regular employees of the Society. It is the case of the applicants that the respondents adopted a dubious mechanism and the autonomy, which was granted to ICFRE to strengthen the forestry research and education, was in fact used to weaken the council and divide the staff and employees of the council by using coercive measures, and that options were sought from time to time and every time threat was followed that the employees would be declared surplus or sent to far flung areas or terminated, if they did not opt for the autonomous council, and further that those who did not exercise their option in favour of ICFRE were subjected to step motherly treatment in the matters of promotion, transfer and other service conditions, though they were treated on compulsory deputation. It is further their case that the employees who did not opt for absorption in ICFRE are not against the grant of autonomy to the Council, but they only want that their service conditions should not be altered to their disadvantage especially in the matters of terminal benefits and pensions. It is the case of the applicants that the respondents ought to have framed rules and regulations governing service conditions of their employees and also the regulations for governing pension and terminal benefits at the threshold before asking for exercising the option, and that in fact, they put the cart before the horse, without disclosing the terms of their absorption, their service conditions after absorption and the source of their funding for pension and terminal benefits. It is pleaded that the compendium of rules and regulations of ICFRE received in January, 2008 under RTI contains very limited information on service conditions and terminal benefits even after 17 years of its existence, which would show the callousness and concern of the management regarding present/future of the employees. By way of illustration, it is pleaded as to how things turned out in the matter of pension. It is stated that so far the respondents have not been able to evolve any scheme for pension though they have claimed to continue CCS (Pension) Rules, and the Government of India very categorically refused to provide the source for funding of pension and pensionary benefits. It is then stated that no utilization of grant-in-aid can be permitted for meeting retiral dues of pensioners, and the Government has also refused to stand a guarantor for any default on this count by the ICFRE. It is further stated that the respondents have been utilizing the Government of Indias lump sum contribution towards the absorbed employees for meeting the pensionary liabilities and the funds are depleting at a tremendous speed, and that the Council has no other source of funding except grant-in-aid, and further that in such situation of uncertainty the employees of the Council could not exercise their option for getting absorbed in the autonomous body. The applicants have then in tabular form tried to project the difference between the ICFRE and ICAR/CSIR in the matter of autonomy in para 4.15 of the Application. It is their case that after grant of autonomy, things did not improve and the Council which is essentially a research organization is often headed by the officers belonging to officers belonging to Indian Forest Service/State Forest Service who are neither career scientists nor teachers, and in fact, employees of ICFRE are suffering on account of group bias, as their fate is dependent at the whims and fancies of the officers belonging to Indian Forest Service, who have no permanent stake in the council, and that the autonomy is, therefore, a misnomer, which has only been used as a weapon to suppress and exploit the employees of the ICFRE, which includes scientific, technical and other staff. It is then pleaded that the respondents treated the applicants on compulsory deputation from 1991 to 2001, but thereafter the respondents declared them surplus as a realization of threat as meted out to them on earlier occasions, but the fact remains that the posts were continued thereafter also in the sense that the applicants were asked to discharge same duties and responsibilities at the same place of posting. This action was, however, made the basis for denying them promotions etc., and it has now been revealed by the DOP&T that only in October, 2007 the applicants have been actually put on surplus roll and are now sought to be redeployed and in some such cases at the fag end of their career. The DOP&T has admitted in its correspondences that actually the applicants are being treated as surplus from 2007, and the logical conclusion of this arbitrary action is that the applicants are being deprived of seven years of seniority in service either in the parent organization or in the organization they will be redeployed at a later date.

6. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, ICFRE, the 3rd respondent herein, has entered appearance and filed its counter reply through DCF, Van Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. While contesting the cause of the applicants, it has inter alia been mentioned in the counter reply that ICFRE and its Research Institutes were converted from a Central Government department to an autonomous organization w.e.f. 1.6.1991 vide notification dated 30.5.1991. ICFRE is registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Services of all the Central Government employees working in ICFRE and its institutes were placed on compulsory deputation with the ICFRE Society on the Central Government terms and conditions of service, which arrangement was to continue till such time as the Central government employees on compulsory deputation were absorbed permanently in the services of ICFRE Society on the basis of option exercised by them. In 1991 the Government approved the Memorandum of Association, bye-laws and rules of ICFRE, and ICFRE framed its own rules and regulations, approved by the board of governors and Government of India. According to these rules, the employees absorbed in regular service of ICFRE are eligible for promotion in the ICFRE and its institutes. The date fixed by the Central government for permanent absorption of the Central government employees in the service of ICFRE Society was 1.4.1993, and it was also made clear that the names of employees who opt to continue as Central Government employees would be sent to the surplus cell for redeployment elsewhere in other departments. After getting satisfied with the rules and regulations the majority of employees (1480) exercised their options for absorption and they were accordingly absorbed in the service of ICFRE Society w.e.f. 1.4.1993. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, it has been pleaded, has taken a number of steps including meeting with the so called Van Anusandhan Sansthan Karamchari Sangh (VASKS) to persuade the employees to join the regular services of ICFRE Society in the interest of the organization as well as their own benefit. Up to the year 2000, the Government had given as many as five chances to these employees to join the services of ICFRE, but only a few employees came forward to join ICFRE. The remaining Central Government employees insisted that they should be allowed to continue working in ICFRE on deputation till their retirement. They also insisted that they may be given the benefit of promotion etc. at par with the regular employees of ICFRE. The request was examined in consultation with the DOP&T and they categorically advised that the Central Government employees cannot be allowed to continue on deputation indefinitely. The Government of India finally declared the Central Government employees on compulsory deputation in ICFRE as surplus and forwarded their names to the DOP&T (Central Surplus Staff Cell) for their redeployment elsewhere in other departments vide OM dated 1.1.2001 and 19.2.2001. Reference is then to OA No.1372/2001 filed by VASKS and the reliefs prayed therein. With regard to the plea raised by the applicants that the respondents had in the proceedings of the OA aforesaid given false affidavits, it is pleaded that the said plea is absolutely wrong and misleading, and that the Ministry of Environment & forests and ICFRE have neither overlooked the directions of the Cabinet nor misled the Tribunal, and further that these issues have been dealt with by the Tribunal and the matter has attained finality till the Apex Court. It is then pleaded that it would be evident from judgment dated 3.1.2003 that a copy of the resolution dated 22.6.1990 (demanded by the applicants) was brought on record by the respondent and it was only a letter intimating that the Government decided to convert the organization into an autonomous society. The Bench observed that We are not at all convinced that this letter has in any way affected the rights and service conditions of the applicants in any adverse manner. Reference is then made to the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court and the prayers made therein. Mention of prayer (d) made in the petition, at this stage, be only made. The same reads thus:

d) To treat the petitioners and other surplus employees in the same manner and on the same terms and conditions as the employees of other Departments in Govt. of India have been treated in the like circumstances and may also direct the Respondent No.2 to allow the applicants to remain on compulsory deputation to the Respondent 3 with all consequential benefits including promotions and without any deputation allowance till their superannuation. By referring to orders passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court, it is stated that nothing survived in the matter in view of the statements made by the counsel representing the parties. By making a reference to civil misc. application bearing CM No.10352/2006 and the order dated 25.8.2006 therein, it is mentioned that the applicants should first exercise their option and act on it, and thereafter, whatever their legitimate grievances, could be addressed by the concerned authorities. On the request of the counsel representing the petitioners, the Honble High Court extended time to exercise option by 15 days, i.e., latest by 8.9.2006. Accordingly the date of exercise of option by surplus Central Government employees was extended up to 8.9.2006, and in compliance of the High Court order only 96 employees exercised options and were absorbed in the service of ICFRE w.e.f. 9.9.2006. Rest of the employees (397) failed to comply with the orders passed by the High court and did not opt to absorption in the regular service of ICFRE. The surplus cell of DOP&T have taken these employees on their roll for redeployment elsewhere in other Central Government departments vide letter dated 1.10.2007. The posting orders in respect of approximately 70 employees have been received and communicated to them for necessary action. DOP&T also issued posting orders in respect of two scientists, namely, Dr. Y.P.Singh and Smt. Malabika Ray. On behalf of FRI Mazdoor Union and some of the representatives again, a writ petition was filed before the Honble Delhi High Court to stay the implementation of DOP&T letter dated 1.10.2007, which was allowed to be withdrawn on the statement made by the counsel with permission to seek remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. It is thereafter that the employees filed a petition seeking special leave to appeal before the Honble Supreme court, reference whereof has already been given above. It is the case of the respondents that the applicants have opted to remain as Central Government servants and are not willing to join ICFRE as an autonomous body in spite of several opportunities given by the Government and the Honble High Court, and that they are on DOP&T rolls awaiting redeployment in other departments, and since they are not the regular employees of the ICFRE, they are not eligible for promotion under ICFRE rules and their request for indefinite deputation has been declined by the DOP&T long back. Insofar as the plea raised by the applicants with regard to protection of pensionary benefits is concerned, it is pleaded that the Honble High court considered the request that some of the employees are keen to join the ICFRE if their pension is protected. It has been explained that the ICFRE is having its own pension scheme and Pension Fund Corpus. So far more than 450 employees of ICFRE and its Research Institutes in the country belonging to Groups A, B, C and D have retired from the regular service of ICFRE and are getting pension/family pension from the pension fund of ICFRE, and in addition, approximately 1700 employees are working in ICFRE and its Research Institutes on pensionable jobs and their services and pensionary benefits are secured in ICFRE. It is pleaded that the management of ICFRE is fully responsible about protection of pension/family pension and due provisions have been made in the Pension Fund Corpus till the last absorbee retired from the service of ICFRE Society. While justifying the difference in status of ICFRE and CSIR/ICAR or NPCIL, it is pleaded that ICFRE has been created to formulate, organize, direct and manage forestry research in the country; effect transfer of technologies to States and other user agencies including farmers; and also to oversee imparting of forestry education in the country; as also that forestry research education cannot be visualized in isolation from the territorial forests of the country, which are under the control of State Forest Departments; and execution of forestry research required suitable forest sites, and all out co-operation of the custodians of the forests, i.e., SFDs, and, therefore, the position in ICFRE is different from ICAR/CSIR or NPCIL. In ICFRE and institutes under it, approximately 255 scientists (Group A) and 65 IFS officers are working together. The selection procedure/recruitment rules for the posts of Director General/Deputy Directors General/Directors are same for the IFS officers and scientists. In addition a large number of research staff (Research Officers/Research Assistants) is also working. It is pleaded that the plea raised by the applicants that the ICFRE does not have autonomy is incorrect. Once again, while refuting the charge of the applicants that false affidavit was filed before the Tribunal in OA No.1372/2001, reference to para 4(j) of the counter reply filed in the OA aforesaid has been made, which reads as follows:

12. In view of discussion made above, we are of the considered view that present Application is barred by general principles of res judicata, based upon the principle that no one should be vexed twice for the same cause of action. Having observed as above, we would, however, deal with the Cabinet note dated 5th May/June, 1990, as this long pending controversy cannot be allowed to go unabated. Surely, with the observations as made above, the application for review would come and, therefore, it would be better to deal with this additional document which, as per the case set up by the applicants, was suppressed by the respondents. Before we may, however, deal with that, we may mention that no material has been placed on record to show that false affidavits were given. We may also observe that during the course of arguments, it was put to the learned counsel representing the parties as to what difference would it make if the ICFRE was to have an autonomous status as a cooperative society, or an autonomous body such as CSIR, ICAR etc. Would it make any difference in the conditions of service of the applicants, would they stand to gain in the matter of their emoluments or promotional avenues, or would have any other additional benefit which may not be available to them if ICFRE was to be a cooperative society having an autonomous status, but not akin to CSIR, ICAR etc., no plausible reply is forthcoming. It is rather amusing to note that all that has been urged before this Tribunal is that ICFRE is located at Dehradum and the applicants wish to continue at that place where they are living since several past years and if the autonomous status of ICFRE was to be akin to the status of CSIR, ICAR etc., the applicants may be continued on deemed deputation till such time they were to superannuate. It may be recalled at this stage that the applicants have made the same prayer, i.e., to remain on deemed deputation with ICFRE till their superannuation, without any deputation allowance. Service conditions of the applicants were to remain the same whether ICFRE was to have an autonomous status similar to CSIR, ICAR etc., with the only difference that the applicant would remain on deemed deputation till their superannuation. We are of the considered view that the respondents had successfully pleaded in OA No.1372/2001 that function-wise and structure-wise, the position of ICFRE is different from other organizations. The plea raised by the applicants for their compulsory deputation with the council/society was repelled by the Tribunal by specifically observing that function-wise and structure-wise the position of ICFRE was different from other organizations. The mere fact that employees of ICFRE were to be on compulsory deputation till the date of superannuation would not provide any ground to the applicants based upon discrimination. Even if the status of ICFRE and other organizations was to be alike, the service conditions of one institution would not automatically apply to the other. This is dependent upon variety of factors, and such factors have indeed been given in the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It has inter alia been pleaded that the ICFRE has been created to formulate, organize and manage forestry research in the country, effect transfer of technologies to States and other user agencies including farmers; to oversee imparting of forestry education in the country; forestry research and education cannot be visualized in isolation from the territorial forests of the country, which are under the control of State Forest Departments; execution of forestry research required suitable forest sites, and all out cooperation of the custodians of the forests, i.e., SFDs; and, therefore, the position in ICFRE is different from ICAR/CSIR/NPCIL. It is further pleaded that in ICFRE and institutes under it, approximately 255 scientists (Group A) and 65 IFS officers are working together, and that the selection procedure/recruitment rules for the posts of Director General/Deputy Director General/Director are same for the IFS officers and scientists, and further that in addition, large number of research staff (Research Officers/Research Assistants) are also working. In the set up of ICFRE it is not possible to retain the applicants on deemed deputation, which may be possible in other organizations referred to above. No case of differential treatment based upon Article 14 of the Constitution can be successfully pleaded. There is a rationale for treating the employees of ICFRE differently than the employees of CSIR, ICAR etc., and, therefore, the plea of discrimination has to be repelled.