Rajasthan High Court
Union Of India vs Ishaq Ahmed Mughal S/O Sh. Sri Nabibux, ... on 23 September, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2024:RJ-JP:40305-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8566/2024
Union Of India, Through, Secretary To The Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran
Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi- 110003
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ishaq Ahmed Mughal S/o Sh. Sri Nabibux, S/o Sri
Nabibux, Aged About 64 Years, R/o- Plot No. 22, Income
Tax Colony Imartya Bera Paota C Road, Jodhpur 342002.
Presently Residing At Plot No. B-71 Mandir Mod, Sec-8
Purana Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur. Retired On 30.11.2015
As Member Secretary And Chief Conservator Of Forest,
Rajasthan State Biodiversity (Group A Ifs) Board, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through, Chief Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur-302005
3. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur-302005
4. Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Forest And
Environment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur-
302005
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Judgment
23/09/2024
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J :-
1. This petition is filed by the Union of India challenging the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the
Tribunal') dated 22.08.2023.
[2024:RJ-JP:40305-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-8566/2024]
2. The brief facts are that vide order dated 12.09.1986
respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to 'respondent') was
appointed on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (for
brevity the 'ACF') in Rajasthan Forest Services with effect from
05.02.1983 the respondent by order dated 06.05.1997 was
promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest (for brevity
'the DCF') against the vacancy of year 1992-1993. On 30.10.2003
the respondent was promoted to Indian Forest Services against
the select list of 2003. Vide order dated 06.04.2004 the
respondent was put in seniority below Mr. R.S. Shekhawat and the
year of allotment in IFS was fixed as 1997. There was dispute,
amongst the officers of inter-se seniority. To resolve the dispute,
in compliance of decision of this Court dated 29.03.2013 in
DBCWP No.703/1996 titled as Bhera Ram Vs. State, vide order
dated 12.12.2014 the final seniority list of ACFs as on 01.04.1985
was revised as also the promotion to the post of DCF. After
revision of the list respondent was promoted to the post of DCF
against the year 1991-92 instead of 1992-93. In view of decision
of the Supreme Court dated 07.04.2015 in SLP against the
judgment of this Court, promotions in IFS Cadre from RFS were
reviewed and select list for the years 1995-96 to 2011 was issued
by notification dated 13.04.2016. The respondent was at serial
No.2 in select list for 1999. Consequent to review, vide order
dated 31.05.2016, forty officers of the State Forest Services were
promoted to IFS Cadre and allocated Rajasthan Cadre. The
promotion to the respondent was denied for not being a
substantive member of service on 31.05.2016, having retired on
[2024:RJ-JP:40305-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-8566/2024]
30.11.2015. Aggrieved of denial of promotion, respondent filed an
Original Application No.463/2017 (for short 'OA'). The Tribunal
considered that the issue was covered by the decision of this Court
dated 02.02.2015 in DBCWP 7472/2013, titled Chhaya Bhatnagar
and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors. and relied upon the earlier
decisions of Tribunal in OA No.463/2017 and OA No.589/2019.
The OA was accepted and petitioner was directed to take decision
on the issue of granting notional promotion to the respondent
w.e.f. 1999 in light of the decision in case of Chhaya Bhatnagar &
Ors. (supra) and decisions of the Tribunal. Aggrieved of the
decision, present petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision
of the Tribunal is in contravention of the Regulation 9 of the Indian
Forest Services (Appointment by Promotions) Regulations, 1966
and Regulation 8 of Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules
1966. The argument is that the respondent retired in November
2015 and was not entitled to promotion consequent to reviewing
of promotion list.
4. The undisputed facts are:-
(i) that respondent was promoted to the post of DCF in 1997
against the vacancy of year 1992-93. After the revision of
seniority list in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court,
the promotion of the respondent to the post of DCF was against
vacancy of the year 1991-92 instead of 1992-93.
(ii) The respondent was promoted in October, 2003 to IFS Cadre
as per the selection list for the year 2003 and allocation year of
[2024:RJ-JP:40305-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-8566/2024]
the respondent for IFS was 1997. After review of promotion list
from RFS Cadre to IFS Cadre, the name of the respondent was at
serial No.2 against select list of 1999.
(iii) OA No.463 of 2017 filed by similarly situated officers was
disposed of by Tribunal on 04.12.2018 with the direction to pass a
reasoned order. The petitioner in compliance of the directions of
the Tribunal promoted nine similarly situated RFS officers to IFS
Cadre. These nine officers had also retired prior to issuance of
notification of 31.05.2016.
5. The Tribunal relied upon decision of this Court in Chhaya
Bhatnagar & Ors. (supra) to allow the claims of the similarly
situated officers. It would be appropriate to mention that it is not
disputed that the decision of this Court in Chhaya Bhatnagar
(supra) and the decisions of the Tribunal in case of similarly
situated officers were accepted and not challenged. There are no
pleadings or contentions raised in this petition distinguishing the
case of the respondent with the case of other nine similarly
situated officers to whom the promotion has been granted in to
IFS cadre. The petitioners have adopted the pick and choose
policy to challenge the decision of the Tribunal in case of
respondent inspite, of having accepted the similar position in the
case of other nine officers.
6. Another angle of the matter is that it is not a case where the
respondent was being promoted to IFS Cadre after
superannuation, rather respondent was promoted in the year 2003
and was allotted the cadre from 1997. After revision of the
[2024:RJ-JP:40305-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-8566/2024]
seniority list consequent to the court decision, the promotion was
to be given against the select list of 1999 instead of 2003.
7. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.
8. The petition is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Chandan/1
Whether Reportable: Yes
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
