Bombay High Court
Rajyastariya Vankamgar, Vanmajur, ... vs State Of Maha., In The Ministry Of ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:4586-DB
WP 4983.22-J.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4983/2022
PETITIONERS : 1. Rajyastariya Vankamgar, Vanmajur,
Vanrakshak, Vanpal Karmachari
Sanghatana, Amravati, A registered Trade
Union under the provisions of Trade Union
Act, 1926 having Registration No.NGP
5130 registered and having its office at 8-B,
Govind Nagar, Behind Nagarjun Colony,
University Camp, Amravati-444602
Through its Secretary Shri Panjab S/o
Anandrao Bhokre.
2. Punjab S/o Anandrao Bhokre, Aged 58
years, Occ : Service, R/o 10-B, Harikrupa
Housing Society, Jaitala, Nagpur.
3. Avadhoot S/o Sudamrao Jambhulkar, Aged
52 years, Occ : Service, R/o 8-B, Govind
Nagar, Nagarjun Colony, University Camp,
Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, In the Ministry of
Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
Through its Principal Secretary.
2. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest, (Administration - Subordinate
Cadre), Maharashtra State, Van Bhawan,
Ramgiri Road, Civil Liens, Nagpur -
440001.
WP 4983.22-J.odt
2
3. Chief Conservator of Forest, Sanchar Laxmi
Bhawan, Kasturchand Park, Nagpur-
440001.
4. Chief Conservator of Forest, Camp
Amravati - 444602.
5. Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan,
Administration Building, Chirch Road,
Civil Lines, Yavatmal - 445001.
6. Chief Conservator of Forest, Dhule-
Jamnagri Road, Near SRP Camp, Dhule-
424001.
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, GP/Sr.Adv.a/b Mr. S.V. Narale, AGP for respondents.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE 02/05/2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioners claim discrimination at the hands of the
respondents, vis-a-vis their members in the matter of grant of benefits
on account of regularization of their services.
WP 4983.22-J.odt
3. The facts in brief, leading to the filing of the present petition are,
that the members of the petitioner No.1, which is a registered Trade
Union of various persons working in the Forest Department such as
Vankamgar, Vanmajoor, Vanpal, Vanrakshak along with the petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 claim that they were engaged on various dates in various
capacities, with the Forest Department, the petitioner No.2 w.e.f.
1/5/1990 and the petitioner No.3 w.e.f. 7.4.1998. The list annexed by
the petitioners along with Original Application No.345/2017 before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short hereinafter),
indicates engagement of persons from 1989 onwards. It is contended,
that similarly situated persons who were also employed by the Forest
Department, for the same type of work, earlier were regularized in
terms of the GR dated 31/1/1996, the criteria therein, being the
persons, who had worked for five years in plan/non-plan work, for a
minimum period of five years between the period 1/11/1989 to
31/10/1994, and every year for minimum 240 days were entitled for
regularization of their employment, by granting age relaxation, by
creating supernumerary post, however, the period for which the said
persons had worked under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS)
were to be excluded for the purpose of counting the aforesaid period. In
terms of this GR dated 31/1/1996 (pg.127), it is not disputed, that as
WP 4983.22-J.odt
many as 10,160 persons were absorbed in permanent capacity in
Group-D category as Forest Labourers. The result of this was that all
these persons were put on regular establishment with all benefits
accruing on account of the same. The regularization, in this case, was
w.e.f. 1/11/1994 for those persons who had completed five years of
employment before that date in terms indicated above.
4. Thereafter, by virtue of the GR dated 16/10/2012 (pg.137) 5089
similarly situated employees/daily wagers were also absorbed by
creating supernumerary posts. The criteria here also was that these
persons were employed under plan/non-plan work (excluding EGS
work) and had worked with the Forest Department between the
duration 1/11/1994 to 30/6/2004 for a period of five years, 240 days
in a year, the regularization however, was made w.e.f. 1/6/2012. It is
this condition of regularization w.e.f. 1/6/2012 instead of the date on
which they had completed five years of service, which is being taken
exception to, on the ground of discrimination, as similarly situated
persons are claimed to have been regularized, and granted benefit in
terms of the GR dated 31/1/1996 (pg.127) w.e.f. from the date on
which they had completed five years of employment.
WP 4983.22-J.odt
5. The petitioners had approached the learned Tribunal, by way of
Original Application No.345/2017, which has been dismissed by the
impugned judgment dated 06/05/2022, being aggrieved by which the
present petition has been filed.
6. Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits as
under:
(a) (i) That there was no difference between the services
provided by the persons who are regularized under the earlier
GR date 31/1/1996 (pg. 127) and the subsequent GR dated
16/10/2012 (pg.137).
(ii) The nature of work done, the number of hours put
was also similar.
(iii) The condition of having worked in a plan/non-plan
work, for a period of five years and having completed
minimum 240 days in a year, was the same.
(iv) The condition of not counting the days having
worked under the EGS scheme was also the same.
WP 4983.22-J.odt
It is therefore contended, that all things remaining
the same, there was no reason whatsoever for the persons
regularised under the G.R. dated 31/1/1996 (pg. 127) to
have been regularised w.e.f. having completed 5 years of
service w.e.f. 1/11/1994 a date earlier to the said G.R. and
the petitioners members who were similarly situated from
being granted the same benefit. This according to him, clearly
amounts to discrimination, as separate categories, are being
created between similarly situated persons, without any
rationale for it.
(b) It is further contended that the reasons given by the learned
Tribunal, to deny the benefit, as spelt out from 25, that if the
relief is granted, the same would also encompass persons who
were not before the Tribunal, cannot be sustained, as the
challenge is to the policy, which has not been considered at
all.
(c) It is further contended, that the learned Tribunal, has
incorrectly held, that the conditions for regularization in both
the GRs were different, which was not the position, as can be
spelt out from a comparison of the criteria considered for the
WP 4983.22-J.odt
purpose of regularization which remains the same for both
the GRs.
(d) It is further contended, that the dismissal of the OA on the
ground, that the Court/Tribunal cannot interfere with a policy
decision, is legally incorrect, as what was being challenged,
was the arbitrariness of the policy and not the policy itself.
7. Mr. Chauhan, learned GP for the respondents, supports the
impugned judgment and contends, that the framing of a Policy for
regularization is within the domain of the Legislature and cannot be
questioned by the respondents, who had given individual consents to be
bound by the policy. In support of this plea, reliance is placed upon
State of Punjab & others / Ram Lubhaya Bagga & ors. (1998) 4 SCC
117. He further contends, that as it is, neither the members of the
petitioner No.1 nor the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, had any right to be
regularized in law, and it is only as a matter of clemency, that the State
had agreed to create supernumerary posts and regularized the daily
wagers in the Forest Department. The petitioners, therefore, according
to him, cannot claim any discrimination. Moreover, according to him,
the conditions for regularization in both the GRs. were different and
though in the GR dated 13/1/1996, the daily wagers were regularized
WP 4983.22-J.odt
w.e.f. from 1/11/1994, those persons were not granted the benefit of
being governed by the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules ("MCSR" for
short hereinafter) and were thus not entitled to pension and other
retiral benefits, whereas, those persons who had been regularised under
the subsequent GR dated 16/10/2012 (pg.137), the provisions of the
MCSR were made applicable to them and they were granted benefits of
pension and gratuity. He therefore submits, that there is a marked
difference between the persons, who were regularised under the GR
dated 31/1/1996 and those under the subsequent GR dated
16/10/2012, who were better situated. It is therefore contended, that
there was a rationale behind regularizing the persons under the GR
dated 16/10/2012, w.e.f. 1/6/2012 and the plea of discrimination was
thus not sustainable.
8. We have carefully perused the contents of the GR Dated
31/1/1996 and the one dated 16/10/2012. We find that the basic
reason, for the learned Tribunal, to reject the claim of the petitioners,
was that under the GR dated 16/10/2012, the persons regularized
thereunder, were directed to be governed by the MCSR, which entitled
them to the benefits of gratuity, pension, GPF, etc., which according to
the learned Tribunal, was not made applicable, to the employees,
WP 4983.22-J.odt
regularized under the GR dated 31/01/1996. In this context, it is
however, necessary to note, that the learned counsel for the petitioners
has filed along with the pursis dated 13/03/2025, an appointment
order dated 26/03/1998 (Pg.241) of an employee regularized under
the GR dated 31/01/1996, which in clause No.2, regarding the
conditions of an appointment, categorically states, that the provisions of
the MCSR, would be applicable to the said employee. This would
indicate, that the point of distinction, culled out by the learned
Tribunal, was not in fact, in existence at all.
9. Though it is true, as contended by Mr.Chauhan, learned GP for
the respondents, that the making of the policy, is within the domain of
the State and the Court cannot interfere with the same, however, it is
equally true, that the Court can always test the arbitrariness or
reasonableness of the policy.
10. We find, from a perusal of the impugned judgment, that the
learned Tribunal, did not consider the plea of arbitrariness of the policy
at all, which can be ascertained from the perusal of paras-24 to 28 of
the impugned judgment. Neither was the position, that the MCSR,
being applicable to the persons, whose employment came to be
WP 4983.22-J.odt
regularized under the GR dated 31/01/1996, was brought to the notice
of the learned Tribunal.
11. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the
aforesaid position needs to be considered, tested and evaluated by the
learned Tribunal. We therefore, quash and set aside the impugned
judgment dated 06/05/2022, passed by the learned Tribunal and
remand the matter back to the Tribunal, to consider the same, in light
of the above position, that the MCSR was also made applicable to the
employees, who were regularized under the GR dated 31/01/1996, and
also to consider the plea, regarding the unreasonableness and
arbitrariness, vis-a-vis, the GR dated 16/10/2012. The parties shall
appear before the Tribunal on 7/05/2025 and produce a copy of this
judgment, before the Tribunal, to apprise it of the same. The Tribunal is
further directed to decide the original application, within a period of
four months thereafter.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
there shall be no order as to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar / KHUNTE
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/05/2025 18:36:41
