Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Chandrakant S/O Rambhau Chimote on 20 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4615 OF 2015
PETITIONERS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, through Revenue &
Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai
through its Principal Secretary.
2) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head
of Forest Force, Van Bhavan, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-01.
3) Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Administration & Subordinate
Services, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4) Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial),
Nagpur Circle, Zero Miles, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
5) Dy. Conservator of Forests, Wardha Division,
Civil Lines, Wardha.
Original Respondents
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- Chandrakant S/o Rambhau Chimote, Aged
67 yrs., Occ. Retired, R/o 525, Gurumurti,
New Nandanvan Layout, Nagpur.
Original Applicant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs.Mrunal Naik, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the petitioners.
Ms K. K. Pathak, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 20.07.2017
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 2/9
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners-State of Maharashtra
and others challenge the order of the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, dated 01/12/2014 allowing an original application filed by
the respondent.
2. The respondent was appointed as a forester by the
petitioners, on 04/02/1969. The services of the respondent, as a
forester were regularised in the year 1981. According to the respondent,
he was granted promotion to the post of range forest officer on ad hoc
basis, on 04/01/1994. Since the respondent claims to have completed
twelve years of service on the post of range forest officer before he
retired on 30/06/2006, the respondent sought for the time bound
promotion in terms of the government resolution dated 20/07/2001.
The petitioners have however refused to grant promotion to the
respondent on the ground that the services of the respondent on the
post of range forest officer were ad hoc and since there was a break in
his service as a range forest officer, he would not have been entitled to
time bound promotion, till his services on the post of range forest
officer were regularised by the State Government. It was informed to
the respondent by the petitioners that the representation of the
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 3/9
respondent for regularisation of his services on the post of range forest
officer was pending with the State Government and unless the services
of the respondent on the post of range forest officer were regularised he
could have been entitled to the time bound promotion in view of the
government resolution dated 20/07/2001. Being aggrieved by the
inaction on the part of the petitioners in extending the benefits of the
time bound promotion to the respondent, the respondent filed the
original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by the order dated
01/12/2014, allowed the original application filed by the respondent
after holding that as every year increments were granted to the
respondent and he was not reverted till 2006, he was entitled to the
benefit of time bound promotion as he had continuously worked on the
post of range forest officer for 12 years. According to the tribunal, the
benefit of the government resolution dated 20/07/2001 could have
been extended to the respondent.
3. Mrs. Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioners, submitted by taking this court through the
documents that are annexed to the petition that the respondent was
never promoted to the post of range forest officer on regular basis. It is
submitted that the promotion order of the respondent, dated
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 4/9
29/01/1994 would clearly show that the respondent was promoted only
for a period of 11 months or till a regularly selected candidate was
available for promotion, whichever was earlier. It is submitted that the
respondent was never promoted on regular basis and the order
promoting the respondent on ad hoc basis clearly provided that the pay
scale of the range forest officer would be paid to him. It is submitted
that by subsequent orders, the respondent was promoted only for 11
months or 3 months and the documents annexed to the petition clearly
show that the services of the respondent on the post of range forest
officer were not continuous and break was given to the services of the
respondent on the said post. It is submitted that the government
resolution dated 20/07/2001 clearly provides that the benefits of the
time bound promotion would be available to those employees who
continuously officiate on a post for 12 years on regular basis. It is
submitted that the services of the respondent on the post of range forest
officer were never regularised and he was continued from time to time
on the post of range forest officer on ad hoc basis by separate
appointment orders issued by the petitioners. It is submitted that by the
last communication that is impugned by the respondent before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the respondent was informed that
if the State Government regularises the services of the respondent he
would be entitled to the benefit of the time bound promotion. It is
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 5/9
submitted that without pursuing the matter for regularisation of his
services on the post of range forest officer, the respondent had sought
the time bound promotion. It is submitted that merely because yearly
increments were granted to the respondent, it cannot be said that the
services of the respondent on the post of range forest officer were
regularised and that he was continuously officiating on the post of
range forest officer for 12 years on regular basis. It is stated that the
government resolution dated 20/07/2001 was not considered by the
tribunal in the right perspective before allowing the original application
filed by the respondent.
4. Ms Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondent, has
supported the order of the tribunal. It is submitted that the respondent
worked on the post of range forest officer for more than 12 years
without any break in the service. It is submitted that if the respondent
had worked on the post of range forest officer without any break in
service for 12 years, he was entitled for the time bound promotion as
per the government resolution dated 20/07/2001. It is submitted
that the service record of the respondent shows that there is no break
in the services of the respondent while working on the post of
range forest officer and increments were also granted to the
respondent every year. The learned counsel relied on the judgment
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 6/9
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M.
Mathivanan, reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 1271 to substantiate that
there is a vast difference between time bound promotion and
regular promotion. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the
writ petition.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the tribunal was not
justified in allowing the original application filed by the respondent.
The services of the respondent on the post of range forest officer were
not regularised and the respondent had made a representation to the
State Government for regularising his services on the post of range
forest officer. If the State Government had not decided the
representation of the respondent for regularisation of his services on the
post of range forest officer, it was necessary for the respondent to have
filed appropriate proceedings for a direction against the State
Government to decide the representation of the respondent within a
time frame. However, this was not done and without any order of the
State Government, regularising the services of the respondent on the
post of range forest officer, the respondent filed the original application
seeking the time bound promotion. The government resolution dated
20/07/2001 clearly provides that the employees officiating on a
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 7/9
particular post for 12 years on regular basis would be entitled to the
benefit of the time bound promotion. The documents placed by the
petitioners on record clearly show that the respondent was not
officiating on the post of range forest officer for 12 years on regular
basis. The word "regular" finds a clear mention in the government
resolution dated 20/07/2001. The documents annexed to the petition
clearly show that ad hoc promotion was granted to the respondent from
time to time and separate orders were passed by the petitioners
extending the period. The promotion orders not only show that ad hoc
promotion was granted by separate promotion orders but the
respondent was promoted on ad hoc basis for a limited period only. If
that is so, it cannot be said that the respondent was officiating on the
post of range forest officer on regular basis continuously for 12 years.
The services of the respondent on the post of range forest officer cannot
be said to be on regular basis and also cannot be said to be continuous.
The respondent also knew about the said position and had therefore
rightly applied to the State Government for regularising his services on
the post of range forest officer. However, without waiting for the State
Government to decide the representation or without seeking any
direction against the State Government to decide the representation and
take appropriate action on the proposal of the respondent for
regularisation of his services on the post of range forest officer, the
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 8/9
respondent erroneously filed the original application seeking time
bound promotion though his services on the post of range forest officer
were not regularised and continuous. It was necessary for the
respondent to have first secured an order from the State Government
pertaining to the regularisation of his services and then if the petitioners
had not granted him time bound promotion, the respondent could have
filed appropriate proceedings seeking the same. The tribunal did not
consider these aspects of the matter and also did not consider the
documents which clearly showed that the petitioner was not promoted
to the post of range forest officer on regular basis and the promotion of
the respondent on the post of range forest officer was not only on ad
hoc basis but was for a limited period and by giving some break, he was
again promoted to the post of range forest officer. Merely because the
respondent had received increments every year, it cannot be said that
the respondent was not working on the post of range forest officer on
ad hoc basis from time to time. It would be necessary for the respondent
to first seek regularisation of his services on the post of range forest
officer before seeking the benefits of the time bound promotion. The
judgment reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 1271 and relied on by the
counsel for the respondent cannot be made applicable to the facts of
this case.
2007WP4615.15-Judgment 9/9
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The order of the tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. The
original application filed by the respondent stands dismissed. The
respondent is however free to take appropriate steps to ensure that the
government takes a decision on the representation made by the
respondent for the regularisation of his services on the post of range
forest officer. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
