AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, J.
The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Peon on regular basis in respondent No. 3-Corporation on 27.8.1987. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 joined as Class-IV employees on 23.1.1991 and 19.6.1995. The petitioners No. 4 and 5 joined as Class IV employees on regular basis on 12.3.1998 and 23.3.1998. The petitioners No. 6 and 7 joined as Class IV employees on 12.1.1998 and 6.2.1998. The petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10 joined on regular basis as Class IV employees on 2.6.1999, 12.1.1999 and 11.6.1999, respectively.
The Principal Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh sent the communication to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla on 12.12.2002 regarding recruitment against the vacant posts of direct recruits of Forest Ranger and Limited Direct Recruitment against the vacant posts of Forest Guards. The following criteria was to be adopted for filling up the posts of forest Guards by mode of Limited Direct Recruitment:
"vi) Criteria for selection to the post of Forest Guard by mode of Limited Direct Recruitment has been approved as under:--
a) A Departmental recruitment/selection committee shall be constituted in each circle.
b) The selection of the candidates shall be made on the basis of State level merit.
c) Wide publicity regarding LDR shall be given amongst all Class IV employees of forest Department and the Forest Corporation.
d) The employees who have passed the matriculation examination shall be eligible for applying for the post of Forest Guard.
e) Firstly, physical test, as per the provisions contained in the R&P Rules for the post of Forest Guard, shall be conducted and those who will qualify the same will be called for interview and viva voce.
f) The interview shall be of 30 marks, distribution criteria of marks shall be as under:--
Thereafter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests sent the communication to the Managing Director of the H.P. Forest Corporation on 20.12.2002 informing about the decision to fill up the posts of Forests Guards through Limited Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Class-IV employees of the Forest Department and H.P. State Forest Development Corporation, as per the criteria laid down in communication dated 12.12.2002. The Physical Test was to be conducted on 9.1.2003 at 10:00 AM and interview was fixed on 10.1.2003. The Managing Director was directed to give wide publicity regarding the Limited Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Class-IV employees of the Forest Corporation for the post of Forest Guard.
In sequel to the letters dated 12.12.2002 and 20.12.2002, the petitioners were considered for appointment to the post of Forest Guard(s) under Limited Direct Recruitment. They were found eligible and issued appointment letters, pursuant to which, they were relieved from 27.10.2003 onwards to permit them to join their duties as Forest Guards. The copies of the relieving orders have been placed on record as Annexure P-3 (Colly). The Forest Department has also issued the seniority list of Forest Guards in respect of Mandi Forest Circle as it stood on 1.1.2012. The petitioners are at Seniority No. 223, 103, 149, 156, 162, 166, 167, 184, 185 and 201, respectively. The respondent-Corporation was also deducting GPF subscription from the salary of the petitioners'' while they were working in the Corporation, as per Annexure P-5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure P-6 dated 17.8.2006, whereby the State Government has decided to introduce Contributory Pension Scheme, for the new appointees of the Himachal Pradesh Government appointed on or after 15.5.2003. Since the petitioners have been relieved to join duties as Forest Guards after 15.5.2003, they were to be covered under Contributory Pension Scheme, as per Annexure P-6.
The stand of the Forest Corporation is that the petitioners have ceased to be their employees and for all intents and purposes, their conditions of service are to be regulated by the norms laid down by the State Government. However, it is admitted in the reply filed by the Corporation that the State Government has 100% share capital in the Forest Corporation and it has complete control over the respondent-Corporation and it had been adopting all the Policies, Instructions and Guidelines, issued from time to time after its inception since 1.4.1974. It is admitted in the reply that the petitioners were appointed as regular Class-IV employees against the dates shown in para 2 of the reply.
The State Government, in its reply, has specifically averred that the petitioners are to be treated as fresh appointees in the State Government since they have joined their duties after cutoff date i.e. 15.5.2003 and they are covered under Contributory Pension Scheme and not under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The petitioners were employees of the State owned Forest Corporation. They were working as regular Class-IV employees in the Forest Corporation. The State Government in its wisdom has decided to fill up the posts by Limited Direct Recruitment from amongst all the eligible Class-IV employees of the Forest Corporation, as per the norms laid down in communications dated 12.12.2002 and 20.12.2002, as discussed hereinabove. They had also undergone physical test and interview and were also found suitable for appointment as Forest Guards. The petitioners'' services have not been terminated from the Forest Corporation. Rather, they were relieved to enable them to join duties in the State Government as Forest Guards, as is evident from Annexure P-3 (Colly). In case the plea raised by the State Government is accepted, in that eventuality, the services rendered by the petitioners in the Forest Corporation from 1987, 1991, 1998 and 1999 onwards would be rendered otiose or redundant. That could not be the intention at the time when the selection process was commenced for filling up the posts of Forest Guards under the Limited Direct Recruitment. It is true in service jurisprudence that the petitioners were serving in the H.P. State Forest Development Corporation, though fully owned and controlled by the State Government and after their selection as Forest Guards, they have become the employees of the State Government. The State Government should have evolved a mechanism at the same time when the instructions were issued on 12.12.2002 and 20.12.2002 to protect the services rendered by the petitioners and similarly situated persons in the eventuality of selection and joining the posts of Forest Guards in the State Government. The services rendered by the petitioners in the Forest Corporation, is required to be protected for all intents and purposes, including pensionary and retiral benefits. The appointments of the petitioners as Forest Guards after going through the rigours of selection process should have been deemed to be continuous from their initial date of appointment in the Forest Corporation to avoid arbitrariness. The action of the respondent-State to treat their appointments as fresh appointments and by not giving them the benefit of their past service, while working as Class-IV employees in the Forest Corporation is unreasonable and irrational and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners, as per Annexure P-6 would now be covered under the Contributory Pension Scheme, which would be harsh and oppressive. The petitioners were contributing towards GPF subscription as per annexure P-5, which was more advantageous to them vis-�-vis new Contributory Pension Scheme. In the seniority list issued vide Annexure P-4, as it stood on 25.4.2012, the appointments of the petitioners have been shown from very initial date of appointment with the Forest Corporation. Thus, in other words, their service is also shown to be continuous.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The services rendered by the petitioners as Class-IV employees in the Forest Corporation, followed by their appointment as Forest Guards in the Forest Department, shall be counted for all intents and purposes in continuity by including them under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, instead of bringing them under the ambit of Contributory Pension Scheme dated 17.8.2006, made applicable w.e.f. 15.5.2003. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to continue subscribing towards General Provident Fund. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.