Dismissed

Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) v. Gopal Singh

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2023CW/1684/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed connected writ petitions filed by the Department challenging the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal's order allowing a Forest Guard to claim selection grade benefits based on service rendered from the date of semi-permanent status.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; Tribunal orders dated 22.04.2022 and 05.05.2022 upheld; stay petitions disposed of.

Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32132]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1686/2023

¶4

Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Aravali Project (Central) Udaipur, Presently Known As Division South, Udaipur.

¶5

Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife), Udaipur.

¶6

Principal Chief Forest Conservator (H.O.), Wildlife, Forest Department, Jaipur.

¶7

Additional Principal Chief Conservator, Forest (Labour And Law), Jaipur.

¶8

Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Forest And Environment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Nawal Singh S/o Shri Nathu Singh, R/o Gogelao, Tehsil Todgarh, District Ajmer.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1684/2023

¶15

Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife), Udaipur. 2. Deputy Chief Warden Wildlife, Udaipur.

¶16

Principal Chief Forest Conservator (H.O.), Wildlife, Forest Department, Jaipur.

¶17

Additional Principal Chief Conservator, Forest (Labour And Law), Jaipur.

¶18

----Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

Gopal Singh S/o Shri Chiman Singh, Forest Guard, Naka Baghdarha Range, Sajjangarh, Wildlife-Division Udaipur, R/o House No. 297, Surya Nagar Titarhi, Udaipur.

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. S. Saluja

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

03/10/2023

[2023:RJ-JD:32132]

[CW-1686/2023]

(2 of 5)

Since both these writ petitions are based on common facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶30

For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1686/2023 (Deputy Conservator of Forest & Ors. V/s Nawal Singh) are being taken into consideration.

¶31

Briefly, the facts in the matter are that the respondentNawal Singh was appointed on temporary basis in the petitionerDepartment on the post of Labour (Tulara) on 16.09.1983. Vide order dated 24.02.1990, he was declared semi-permanent on the post of Tulara w.e.f. 01.04.1986 and was placed in the pay-scale of 360-5-430-10-460. While the respondent was serving on the post of Tulara, he was assigned the duties of Forest Guard for a period of 03 months w.e.f. 27.05.1996. Vide order dated 27.10.2006, the respondent was granted the First Selection Grade upon completion of 9 years of service on the post of Forest Guard counting his services w.e.f. 18.05.1996. The respondent was granted Second Selection Grade by an order dated 22.09.2015 upon completion of 18 years of service.

¶32

The respondent preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for claiming the benefit of grant of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service while counting his services with effect from 01.04.1986 i.e. the date when he was granted semi-permanent status on the post of Tulara.

¶33

The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties, vide order dated 22.04.2022, partly allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the post of Tulara was having the same pay scale which was being granted to

[2023:RJ-JD:32132]

[CW-1686/2023]

(3 of 5)

the Forest Guard at the time of absorption of the respondent on the post of Forest Guard by the petitioner-Department and the petitioner-Department was directed to grant the benefit of selecton scale/ACP by counting the period of 9, 18 & 27 years of service w.e.f. 01.04.1986.

¶38

Being aggrieved of the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Rajasthan, the petitioner-Department has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Department submits that when the respondent was declared semi-permanent on the post of Tulara, the pay-scale of Tulara was lower than the pay-scale of Forest Guard at the relevant point of time. Thus, learned counsel submits that the period of computation for the grant of Selection Grade/ACP should be computed with effect from the date on which the respondent was absorbed as Forest Guard. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be allowed and the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal may be quashed and set-aside.

¶40

On asking, learned counsel for the petitioner-Department very fairly submits that at the time of absorption of the respondent on the post of Forest Guard, the post of Tulara was having the same pay scale of the Forest Guard.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of absorption of the respondents on the post of Forest Guard, the post of Tulara was carrying the same pay scale and, therefore, the respondents are entitled to get their computation of 9, 18 & 27 years of services counted from the date of declaring

[2023:RJ-JD:32132]

[CW-1686/2023]

(4 of 5)

the respondents semi-permanent on the post of Tulara. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the orders passed by the Tribunal do not call for any interference and he prays that present writ petitions may be dismissed.

¶46

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

¶47

On 17.08.2023, arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and this Court posed a question to the counsel for the petitioner-Department to complete his instructions with respect to the fact that whether the post of Tulara was carrying the same pay scale as that of the Forest Guard on the date when the respondents were absorbed from the post of Tulara to Forest Guard.

¶48

Leaned counsel for the petitioner, on the instructions given by the petitioner-Department, very fairly submits that the date on which the services of the respondents were absorbed on the post of Forest Guard from the post of Tulara, both the posts were carrying the same pay scale. Since both the posts of Tulara as well as Forest Guard were carrying the same pay scale on the date of absorption, therefore, the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of counting the period of 9, 18 & 27 years of services with effect from the date of declaring them as semi-permanent on the post of Tulara.

¶49

This court further takes note of the fact that the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has considered the submissions made before it and rightly come to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of counting their

¶50

(5 of 5) [CW-1686/2023]

¶51

[2023:RJ-JD:32132]

¶52

services for the grant of selection scale of 9, 18 & 27 years w.e.f. 01.04.1986 & 16.07.1986 respectively.

¶53

In view of the discussions made above, no interference in the orders dated 22.04.2022 & 05.05.2022 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is warranted by this Court. The present writ petitions are devoid of any force and the same are, hereby, dismissed.

¶54

The stay petitions as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶55

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶56

15-16-SunilS/-

Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) v. Gopal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) v. Gopal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Katara Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Kumar Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Aaidan Ram Suthar Vs Hapu Ram

Varun Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Hari Ram Vs State of Rajasthan