12 October 2004
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF ORISSA Vs ALL ORISSA FORESTRY EXT. OFF'R.ASS. &ORS

Case number: C.A. No.-001079-001079 / 2001
Diary number: 18660 / 2000
Advocates: RADHA SHYAM JENA Vs


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1079 of 2001

PETITIONER: State of Orissa & Ors.

RESPONDENT: All Orissa Forestry Ext. Officers Assoc. & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2004

BENCH: Ruma Pal & Arun Kumar

JUDGMENT: J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

ARUN KUMAR, J.

       The forest service in the State of Orissa was constituted  under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Madras Forest Act,  1882.  However, in 1972 the State had its own Forest Act.  The  primary object of the legislation was protection and management  of forests in the State.  The words ’forest officer’ have been  defined under the Act to mean persons whom the State  Government, or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, may  appoint to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act.  A forest  officer would include the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as  well as subordinates like Conservator of Forests, Forest Range  Officers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters.  In the year 1979 the State  of Orissa adopted the Antyodaya Programme of the Central  Government.  Under the said programme Social Forestry Projects  were undertaken which envisaged contact with the poorest of poor  farmers to educate and train them in matters connected with  farming.  For purpose of the Social Forestry Projects, ex cadre  posts of Forestry Extension Officers (for short ’FEOs’) were  created by the State Government.  These were project related posts  and their expenses were met from special funds raised for the  project.  The project was for specific purpose and for a specific  period and was funded by the Central Government.  The duration  of the project was, however, extended from time to time in order to  fulfil its objective.

The recruitment for the posts of FEOs was to be made from  the open market.  The officers were to be given training in raising  of seedlings, nursery work etc. so that when they go to the field  they could properly motivate and educate the farmers.  The  minimum qualification prescribed for FEOs was Intermediate with  Botany as a subject.  After recruitment these officers were to be  posted in blocks wherein forestry extension work was undertaken.   Certain blocks within the State were selected for such extension  work as a part of the Forestry Extension Programme.  The FEOs  were envisaged as somebody remaining in touch with small  farmers at the lowest level in each village block and assessing their  requirements of forest species and other species. The respondents were recruited as Forestry Extension  Officers under the Project from 1979 onwards.    The respondents  claim that they should be treated as part of the forest service under  the Forest Department of the State Government and the posts held  by them should have equal pay and equal status with the equal  level posts in the Forest Department.  They further claim that the  posts held by them should be included in the channel of promotion  to higher posts in the forest Department.  The grievance of the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

respondents is that they have been stagnating in the posts of FEOs  to which they were recruited nearly twenty years ago.  According  to them though the project has senior level posts of Social Forestry  Supervisors but these posts are being filled by getting officers from  forest service of the State Government on deputation, thereby the  posts are being denied to them.  In the matter of pay scales the  grievance of the FEOs is that they are being equated with foresters   who are neither as qualified as they are nor the foresters discharge  such important functions  as they are discharging.  The minimum  educational qualification prescribed for the post of forester in the  quota meant for direct recruits at the relevant time was  Matriculation only.  The FEOs are trained to motivate people  under Social Forestry Projects which requires contact with  individual farmers and working at the grass root level.  On the  other hand, officers of the Forest Department of the State are  mainly concerned with protecting forests, including forest  property, preventing illegal felling of trees, keeping a check on  forest contractors in order to ensure that forest produce is not  illegally exploited and removed, prevention of poaching of forest  animals etc.. In the year 1990, some of the Forest Extension Officers  (FEOs) approached the Orrisa Administrative Tribunal for  purposes of relief with regard to the above demands.  In fact,  before approaching the Tribunal they had made  representation to  the Government which did not yield any result.  This Original  Application was disposed of by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal  vide order dated 7.9.1995.  The Tribunal noted that the government  was alive to the grievance being aired by the FEOs.  It directed the  State Government to decide the question of fixation of pay scales  of FEOs within six months.  The Association of the FEOs was  allowed an opportunity to be heard by the officers of the State  Government who would be taking such a decision on behalf of the  government.  The Tribunal further observed that when the question  of pay scales would be considered, the question of promotional  avenues should also be taken into consideration.  It appears that  nothing happened in pursuance of the said direction of the  Tribunal.  The Association of FEOs again approached the Tribunal  by way of an application in the year 1996.  The main grievance of  the Association was that inspite of the FEOs being well qualified,  they were being made to stagnate as there were no chances of  promotion to higher posts available for them.  The other grievance  was about not getting appropriate scale of pay.  The respondents  claim that they should be treated as equivalent to Forest Rangers  and the scale of pay and service benefits given to Forest Rangers  should be available to them also. The Tribunal noted that the nature of duties performed by  FEOs and the Foresters could not be compared because the two  were entirely different.  Similarly, the method of recruitment and  the basic qualifications required for eligibility to the two posts  were different.  However, the grievance of the FEOs could not be  overlooked.  Undoubtedly, the FEOs were not getting any chances  of promotion nor they were getting the pay scales commensurate to  the duties and functions being performed by them.  Having regard  to these aspects the Tribunal directed that those FEOs who have  put in more than ten years of service as FEOs should be treated at  par with the post of Deputy Ranger in the state forest service and  placed in the same scale of pay which is now applicable to Deputy  Rangers.  They should also be made eligible for promotion to the  posts of Forest Rangers.  Those FEOs who have put in less than ten  years of service may be treated at par with Foresters and be made  eligible for promotion as Deputy Rangers.  The Tribunal noted that  it was stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the  Government in the proceedings before the Tribunal that steps were  being taken for movement of the FEOs to other divisions so as to  induct them into the mainstream.  The Tribunal expected that this

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

movement should start which would result in FEOs with more than  ten years of service being posted as Deputy Rangers when they are  moved from Social Forestry Section and others should be posted as  Foresters.  In view of the averments in the counter affidavit the  Tribunal recommended to the State Government that the exercise  in terms of the above directions should start without further delay  so as to equip the FEOs for their induction into the mainstream  whenever the Social Forestry Welfare Scheme is abolished.  The  order of the Tribunal also contained a direction that in future  vacancies for Forest Rangers and Deputy Rangers quotas should be  earmarked for FEOs with more than ten years of service and FEOs  with less than ten years of service respectively.  The Tribunal  directed the State Government to complete the exercise within four  weeks. The State Government issued an order on 19th May, 1998  carrying out the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of  the Orissa Administrative Tribunal.  Those Forest Extension  Officers who had put in more than ten years of service were to be  treated at par with Deputy Rangers and placed in the same pay  scale i.e. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040.  Since out of 105 Forestry  Extension Officers, 100 had already completed more than ten years   of service as FEOs they were to be declared Senior Grade Forestry  Extension Officers and were to be made eligible for promotion to  the post of Forest Ranger.  Those FEOs who had rendered less than  ten years of service were to be treated at par with Foresters.  The  order contained further details about how the various quotas were  to be worked out and postings were to be made. One of the Foresters, under an apprehension that FEOs   belonging to the Social Forestry Projects were being merged with  the mainstream forest service of the State, approached the State  Administrative Tribunal in the year 1998 seeking a declaration that    Forestry Extension Officer do not belong to the cadre of the state  forest service and that they should not be promoted to the posts of  Deputy Rangers.  The case of the applicant before the Tribunal was  that the Social Forestry Project was a project scheme and the FEOs  appointed under that scheme held ex-cadre posts.  They were  appointed to execute the Project and, therefore, they had nothing to  do with regular forest service under the State Government.  Since  they were holding ex-cadre posts they could not claim promotion  to the posts under the cadre.  The Tribunal in its order dated 27th  January, 1999 found that the apprehension of the petitioner before  it was totally misplaced.  The Forestry Extension Officers                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           were being given only the pay scales of the equivalent posts in the  State Government.  Giving equivalent pay scales did not mean that  they were being merged with the forest service of the State  Government.  Similarly regarding their promotions to the posts of  Senior Social Forestry Extension Officer, their identity was being  kept separate.  The equivalence was provided only qua the scales  of pay.  The Tribunal  noted: "6.     There is nothing in the letter of 19th May,  1998 to show that at any point of time the posts of  Social Forestry Extension Officers or Senior Grade  Social Forestry Extension Officers on one side and  the Deputy Rangers and Foresters on the other  have been made interchangeable posts.  In order to  give incentive to the Extension Officers only a  separate channel of promotion has been creatd for  them.  Neither an Extension Officer can claim a  post of Deputy Ranger nor a Forester can claim the  post of Senior Grade Forestry Extension Officer."

The Tribunal further observed:

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

"7.     However, in sub-para (i) of paragraph 1 of  the said letter there is an observation that the  forestry Extension Officer with more than 10 years  of service should be posted as Deputy Ranger  when it is proposed to move them out of the   Social Forestry Directorate and others having less  than ten years of service may be posted as  Foresters.  We are of the vie that since the  government do not intend to make the posts  interchangeable, this observation cannot be  accepted as reasonable.  Until the Extension  Officers and Senior Extension Officers are  regularly absorbed in the cadre of Foresters and  Deputy Rangers and Rangers, they cannot be  allowed to hold the posts of Ranger/Deputy  Ranger or Forester.  We, therefore, advise the State  Government to frame a scheme or rules for their  absorption in the Forest Department in the event of  the abolition of the Directorate of Social Forestry.   Until then, the Extension Officers shall not be  brought over to the cadre of Foresters and Deputy  Rangers.  In case the Government desire that the  Senior Grade Forest Extension Officer should also  have further promotional facility, it is open to the  State Government to consider and create  appropriate promotional posts for them."

       The above order was passed on 27th January, 1999.  The State  Government filed a Special Leave Petition in this Court  challenging the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 5th March, 1997  in the first week of November, 2000 without even making a  reference to the subsequent order dated 27th January, 1999.  Thus  the order dated 27th January, 1999 has not been challenged by any  party.  Leave to appeal was granted in the Special Leave Petition  and the matter was registered as Civil Appeal No.1079 of 2001  which is being disposed of by this order. During the pendency of this Civil Appeal the Government of  Orrisa passed a resolution dated 8th August, 2003 re-organising the  field establishments of the Forest and Environment Department  under the ’Forestry and Wildlife’ wing by abolishing the  Afforestation and Social Forestry Division and Circles and creating  a number of  Territorial and Wildlife Divisions and Circles.   Further the resolution abolishes certain establishments including  the Social Forestry Department.   The staff of the Departments  which were being abolished was deployed within the remaining  establishments.  The said resolution provides that the Government  had decided to abolish eighteen establishments under the control of  Director, Social Forestry Project with which we are concerned in  the present case.  With the abolition of eighteen establishments of  Social Forestry Project, the staff of the establishments is to be  deployed in the Divisions/Circles/State Forest Headquarters as per  the plan given in the resolution.  The resolution came into effect on  the date it was issued i.e. 8th August, 2003 and provides that the  reorganization exercise was to be completed by 30th September,  2003.  The exercise had started and in pursuance thereof a Memo  dated 24.10.2003 was issued.  None of the parties appearing before  us have disputed the said resolution.  In fact, an affidavit was filed  in the present proceedings on behalf of the respondent Association  bringing the said resolution on record.  The respondents further  stated that in view of the resolution dated 8th August, 2003 the  points sought to be raised by the Government in the present appeal  were no longer available to it.  By the said resolution the members  of the respondent-association i.e. Forest Extension Officers (FEOs)

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

who were working under the Social Forestry Projects had been  taken into the mainstream i.e. into the Forest Department of the  Government of Orissa called the Territorial and Wildlife Division.   The Social Forestry Directorate stands abolished.   It is a resolution  of the State Government.  Naturally the learned counsel for the  appellant, i.e. the State of Orissa accepts the resolution.  In view of  these developments the FEOs have ceased to be officers working  against a particular project.  They have become part of the forest  service of the State Government.  Their grievances do not survive  any more.  We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for  some of the forest service officers who had intervened in these  proceedings.  He has tried to canvas that the position of his clients  should not be adversely affected due to the merger.  As at present  he could not spell out any cause for worry for his clients.  In any  case, in the event of any prejudice being caused to the interveners,  they will have independent cause of action for which they are free  to pursue their remedies.  So far as the State Government is  concerned, it is bound by its resolution and, in fact, has taken steps  to implement the same.  Nothing survives in this appeal.  The same  is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.  No costs.