SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Orissa
Vs
All Orissa Forestry Extension Officers Association
Civil Appeal No. 1079 of 2001
((Mrs.) Ruma Pal and Arun Kumar)
12/10/2004
ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. 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 by 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 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.
4. In the year 1990, some of the Forest Extension Officers (FEOs) approached
the Orissa 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.
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
the 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 created 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." *
8. The Tribunal further observed:
"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."
*
9. 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.
10. During the pendency of this Civil Appeal the Government of Orissa 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) 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 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