Bimal Bhadra And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

Heard Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India-respondents.

By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue notice upon the respondents;

(ii) Call for the relevant records;

(iii) Issue rule calling upon the respondents to modify the Recruitment Rules for the post of Forest Range Officer to give full effect to the recommendation of the Pande Commission and benefits float there from to the Forest Range Officer;

(iv) Issue rule calling upon the respondents to declare the post of Forest Ranger as Group-A or Group-B Gazetted;

(v) Issue rule calling upon the respondents to upgraded the uniform status of Forest Ranger to six pointed silver plated Stars, three on each shoulder flap without ribbon;

(vi) Issue rule calling upon the respondents to change the designation of Forest Range Officer to Range Forest Officer;

(vii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus for giving direction to fix the pay of the petitioners as Forest Ranger in PB-3 (Pay Rs. 10230-34800/-+GP Rs. 4800/-);

(viii) (a) Issue Rule calling upon the respondents and each of them to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2019 issued by respondent no.7 by discarding to declare the post of Forest Ranger as Group-A or Group-B gazatted and also not to fix the pay of the petitioners as Forest Ranger PB-3 (Pay Rs. 10230-34800/- + GP 4800/-);

(viii) And after hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute;

(ix) Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.

The brief facts are: The petitioners are serving as Forest Ranger. The government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change after considering the representations of various associations of Range Officers serving in different States of the country, for regulating their service conditions, constituted a committee vide office memorandum no. 3-7/94-RT dated 29.09.1995 and corrigendum no. 3-7/94-RT dated 12.01.1996. The government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest constituted the said committee with various terms and conditions. On 25.01.2007 the Director of Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change issued a letter to the Joint Secretary, 6th pay commission recommending for giving a uniform pay scale to the persons belonging to subordinate forest service, throughout the country. In the said communication the Director of MOEFCS recommended the parity of pay scales and the recommendations of the pay scale of Range Forest Officer as Rs. 7450-11500/-. The Committee, namely, Pandey Committee stated that Range Forest Officers play a crucial role in the protection and management and sustainable development of the forest resources within their respective jurisdiction. The Pandey Committee recommended the minimum educational qualification, recruitment through the State Public Service Commission, all the Range officers should be declared as subordinate gazetted officers, etc. The respondents amended the recruitment rules for the post of Forest Range under the Forest Department, Government of Tripura on 29.06.2000. In the said recruitment rules the qualification and the process of recruitment were amended, but, surprisingly, other recommendations of the Pandey Committee as well as the approval of MOEFCS were not amended though most of the states of India have adopted the recommendations of the Pandey Committee in its entirety. The petitioners made several representations to implement the Pandey Committee report and the recommendation therein, in respect of Pay and status of the Forest Range Officers. Despite that the respondents did not pay any heed to implement the recommendation of Pandey Committee.

Mrs. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the representations submitted by the petitioners on several occasions, the appropriate authority of the respondents had assured the petitioners that the Pandey Committee recommendations would be considered, but, inspite of that the respondents did not at all consider the same till date. Ms. Debgupta, learned counsel has further submitted that to maintain the parity of pay amongst all the officers of the cadre throughout the country, the recommendation of Pandey Committee has to be adopted by the government.

On the other hand, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents, has submitted that this court cannot pass any such direction mandating the government to implement any recommendations recommended by any of the Committees. It is the policy decision of the government, and the government is the absolute authority to consider as to whether the recommendations would be accepted or not.

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am in agreement with the submission of learned Government Advocate that this court cannot ask the government to modify the recruitment policy, framed by any of the departments of the government. It is entirely within the domain of the government being the employer and the court cannot overstep its jurisdiction asking the government to implement such report/recommendation to determine/govern the recruitment rule in a manner which suits the employees under it.

Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, I direct the respondents to consider the recommendations of the Pandey Committee within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, and inform the petitioners about their decision and policy in this regard.

No order as to costs.