Telangana High Court

Tenali Srinivasa Rao vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 22319 OF 2019
O R D E R:

Petitioners' question the action of Respondents 3

and 4 in retrenching the contractual forest strike force/ check

post/ base camp and watch dog staff as illegal, arbitrary, and

violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

According to petitioners, retrenchment has been undertaken

without reasonable cause and this attempt is being made to

replace them with new contractual employees. Hence, they seek

to reinstate them into service with back wages and

regularisation of their services.

2. The case of petitioners, contractual forest strike

force, check post, base camp and watch dog staff, were

recruited through various contractual agencies engaged by

Respondents 3 and 4. As per records from October 2015, the

forest cover in Telangana spans 20,419 square kilometers,

constituting 18.22% of the State's geographical area. Protection

of this forest cover necessitates extensive manpower. It is

stated, respondents engaged personnel through contractual

arrangements by paying meagre salaries and compensations,

assigning them duties such as beat work, strike force

deployment and base camp surveillance.

It is the case of petitioners, while discharging their

duties, they have been subjected to extreme and inhumane

working conditions without proper equipment, training or

protective gear. They have encountered dangerous wild animals,

poachers and even hostile locals, including tribals and

agriculturalists, in the course of their work. Several petitioners

suffered injuries due to attacks by wild animals and poachers.

Petitioners worked without social security benefits or other

entitlements available to government servants. Despite their

crucial role in forest conservation and protection, they have

been denied fair wages and service benefits.

It is the further case of petitioners that in

compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated

30.10.2002 in I.A. No.566 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995,

the 2nd respondent constituted the Compensatory Afforestation

Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), i.e. the 5th

respondent. This Authority was created to manage funds

towards compensatory afforestation, net present value (NPV),

and other recoverable amounts. Respondents 3 and 4

subsequently established the 6th respondent - Telangana State

Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning

Authority to utilize funds received towards compensatory

afforestation, NPV, and other purposes related to forest and

wildlife conservation. Petitioners were compensated with

minimal salaries from the funds received by the 6th respondent

from the 5th respondent. Despite the availability of substantial

funds, Respondents 5 and 6 have resorted to downsizing the

contractual workforce through dubious methods, citing

shortage of funds from CAMPA. However, records indicate that a

large sum remains unutilized with the authorities concerned.

Petitioners' grievance is that Respondents 3 and 4

have purportedly decided to cease further expenditure on

contractual forest staff based on a communication from the 5th

respondent and this decision was conveyed through

communication dated 11.07.2019. Consequently, orders were

issued to rationalize the Base Camp/Strike Force/Check Posts

manpower through communication dated 27.07.2019. In

addition, recruitment for the posts of Forest Section Officers and

Forest Beat Officers was ongoing simultaneously. Petitioners

contend that the 4th respondent sought to unfairly eliminate

existing contractual staff by enforcing strenuous physical

fitness tests, including a 25 km. walk, without providing

necessary infrastructure or facilities which were deliberately

introduced to terminate their services and reduce costs despite

the availability of adequate funds with Respondents 5 and 6.

Retrenchment has resulted in severe hardship for them, leaving

them and their families without income or social security,

laments petitioners. It is stated that petitioners learnt through

reliable sources that Respondents 3 and 4 are now recruiting

fresh contractual employees through outsourcing agencies,

having systematically retrenched them under false pretences.

This has been communicated through letter dated 30.09.2019,

which scheduled a screening test for new contractual Protection

Watchers of Base Camps on 02.10.2019. This action, petitioners

state, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of

natural justice.

The Respondents' claim of financial constraints is

unfounded, given the substantial funds available with CAMPA

and the Telangana State Compensatory Afforestation Fund

Management and Planning Authority. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. In the counter filed by the Assistant Inspector

General of Forests, Government of India on behalf of

Respondents 1 to 5, it is stated that for conservation of forests

and for matters connected therewith, the Parliament enacted

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act'). It is

stated, petitioners claimed that salaries paid to them by the

contract agencies were from the funds received from the 6th

respondent which were acquired by the State from the 5th

respondent. However, the alleged retrenchment so done is due

to the shortage of CAMPA funds from Respondents 5 and 6. It is

further stated that as per sub-clause 4 (a) of Clause 5 of

Compensatory Afforestation Fund Rules, 2018, monies referred to in

sub-rule (1) shall not be used for payment of salary, travelling

allowances, medical expenses, etcetera to regular, contractual

and casual employees of the State Forest Department for

implementing programmes in various forest divisions

undertaken from the State Fund. CAMPA funds can be utilized

only for the above stated activities as per the Compensatory

Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 and CAMPA Rules 2018.

Ultimately, it is stated, the instant case is a matter of

retrenchment by contractual agencies, hence, Central

Government has no role in the matter.

4. The 4th respondent filed counter stating that

petitioners, as admitted by them, were neither recruited nor

posted by the Forest Department against any vacancies; their

services are provided by the outsourcing agencies concerned

only as and when needed by the department. Due to large

vacancies in the forest department, services of outsourcing

agencies are engaged for providing manpower to assist the

working staff for protection of forest and wildlife. Now since the

recruitment of field level staff is completed, the District Forest

Officers / Forest Divisional Officers were requested to

rationalise the manpower provided by the outsourcing agencies.

Drawing attention to the terms and conditions of

agreement with the successful contractual agency for supply of

manpower, the 4th respondent states that tenders were invited

by the District Forest Officers concerned from eligible

outsourcing agencies to provide manpower for assisting forest

staff in forest protection as per the requirement for a period of

one year. The duties and responsibilities were clearly mentioned

in the tender documents. Accordingly, eligible outsourcing

agencies at the District level provided the manpower available

with them on an outsourcing basis to the respective Forest

Divisions. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement,

payments were made to the outsourcing agencies. Therefore, the

allegation made by the petitioners that Forest Department is

responsible for their employment and service conditions is

incorrect and baseless. The Forest Department is in no way

concerned regarding their service as they were provided by the

outsourcing agencies only.

It is further stated that due to large vacancies in the

Forest Department, services of outsourced manpower were

utilized to assist the regular staff in forest and wildlife

protection. However, with the recruitment of 2014 field staff

members and the joining of 1401 officers, rationalization of

outsourced manpower became necessary. Therefore, Circle-level

Committees were directed to rationalize the outsourced

manpower in respective Districts and Divisions in compliance

with the Circular instruction dated 09-06-2017.

5. In the reply to counter of Respondents 1 to 5,

petitioners state that outsourcing agency engaged in

recruitment process is merely a recruiting agency and its role is

limited to carrying out the recruitment. Once recruitment is

completed, the role of the outsourcing agency ceases, and the

responsibility of employing petitioners falls upon the respondent

organization. Consequently, they become employees of the

respondent organization and not employees of the recruiting

agency. The respondents, therefore, cannot shift the burden of

employment onto the outsourcing agency merely because the

recruitment was conducted through such an agency. The

identity cards issued to the petitioners clearly designate them as

employees of the respondent organization, thereby affirming the

employer-employee relationship between petitioners and

respondents. According to petitioners, failure to furnish specific

reasons for retrenchment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and in

violation of principles of natural justice. Additionally,

petitioners emphasize that their termination has been carried

out without following due process, and in complete disregard of

the statutory and contractual obligations binding on the

respondents. The respondents have neither issued any proper

notice nor conducted any fair hearing before effecting the

retrenchment. This blatant disregard for legal procedures and

fairness underscores the mala fide intention behind the

downsizing exercise.

6. In response to the counter filed by the 4th

respondent, petitioner stated that Respondents 3 and 4, based

on an alleged directive from the 5th respondent, decided to cease

incurring further expenditure on the forest protection workforce.

This decision was made despite the fact that the 5th respondent

possessed substantial funds that could have been allocated for

the continued engagement of employees. In this regard, a

communication dated 11-07-2019 was issued by the 4th

respondent, conveying the decision not to continue funding the

forest protection workforce. It is further submitted that during

the same period, the recruitment of Forest Section Officers and

Forest Beat Officers was actively being conducted,

demonstrating that financial constraints were not the actual

reason for the retrenchment. Additionally, the 4th respondent

illegally issued orders to rationalize the Base Camp/Strike

Force/Check Post manpower vide communication dated

27-07-2019. Petitioners contend that instead of hiring new

candidates, Respondents ought to have regularized their

services, as they had already gained considerable experience

and had been effectively discharging their duties.

It is stated, petitioners were assigned duties by the

Respondents, and their work was supervised and regulated by

the Respondents' officers. All of these factors unequivocally

establish that the petitioners were indeed employees of the

Respondents, and any claim to the contrary is merely an

attempt to evade legal obligations.

7. Ms. B. Rachana, learned counsel for petitioners,

relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State

of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh 1, contends that a temporary

employee should not be replaced by another temporary

employee.

8. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I on

behalf of the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for

Forests on behalf of Respondents 4 to 6, Ms. Sampada, learned

1992 AIR 2130

Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent and learned

Government Pleader for General Administration for the 2nd

respondent and perused the record.

9. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and

arguments advanced by both the parties, this Court finds that

petitioners were engaged in essential forest protection services

under precarious conditions on contractual basis. Now,

Respondents 3 and 4 have purportedly decided to cease further

expenditure on contractual forest staff based on a

communication from the 5th respondent, as is evident from the

communication dated 11.07.2019 and consequently, orders

were issued to rationalize the Base Camp/Strike Force/Check

Posts manpower through communication dated 27.07.2019.

However, vide communication dated 30.09.2019, Respondents 3

and 4 are now recruiting fresh contractual employees through

outsourcing agencies and it scheduled a screening test for new

contractual Protection Watchers of Base Camps on 02.10.2019.

It demonstrates that financial constraints were not the actual

reason for retrenchment. Further, the material on record does

not disclose that petitioners' termination was carried out duly

following the process; respondents have neither issued proper

notice nor conducted fair hearing before affecting retrenchment.

Petitioners were admittedly, discharging duties assigned to them

and their services ought to have been continued, instead of

recruiting other contractual employees. In this regard, the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case

(supra) is very clear. It reads as under:

" The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employees.

Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority."

In view of the settled legal position, it can safely be held that the

attempts of Respondents 3 and 4 to engage the services of

protection watchers for Base Camps on outsourcing basis,

through the communication dated 30.09.2019 are illegal and

arbitrary.

10. Apart from that, it is to be observed that petitioners

were engaged for years in hazardous and essential duties, yet

they were retrenched without proper justification. Their sudden

retrenchment, coupled with the recruitment of fresh contractual

employees, indicates unfair labour practice. In the light of the

same, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition deserves

to be allowed.