Manmohan Singh & others vs State & Others

Who has to decide about location of an office and can such order directing the particular office will have its head quarter at a particular place be

questioned being discriminatory are the questions which need to be determined in the present writ petition. At the time when this writ petition was

filed claim of all the petitioners was identical, however from the objections filed by the respondents it is clear that petitioners 9,15,27 and 32 have

been detailed to work at some other places, whereas petitioners 21,22 & 23 were casual laborers and petitioner ho.26 was attached in the Office

of Conservator of Forest at Jammu. Regarding other petitioner's stand of the respondents is that they are divisional cadre employees and as such

their grievance that they are district cadre employees is untenable.

Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the State Government vide Government Order No: 34FST of 1981 dated 20.2.1981 ordered the

reconstitution of Forest Circles and their location at different places. Copy of this order is placed by the petitioner as Annexure PA with the writ

petition and by the respondents as Annexure R2 with their objections. This order was issued on the basis of Cabinet Decision No: 565 dated 29th

December, 1980. For the present writ petition, petitioners are concerned with the location of office of Conservator of Forest, West Circle at

Rajouri.

It is very strange that Cabinet had decided almost two decades ago to reconstitute the circles as well as places where the head quarters of such

circles were to be located, for reasons best known to the authorities concerned though the cabinet decision was holding the field, still the head

quarters were not being shifted.

During the course of hearing of this case main thrust of the submissions of learned counsel appearing for petitioners was that since the petitioners

were working on the district cadre posts, as such their transfer is contrary to Rule 10 of Decentralization Rule of 1969, and that the order is

discriminatory because the East Circle has been retained at Jammu. Reason for such discrimination was that respondents have accommodated

persons working in East Circle over similarly situate like petitioners. Further case of the petitioners is that though East Circle was ordered to retain

its head quarter at Jammu, but identical prayer made by the petitioners for retaining the head quarter of the Circle, in which they were working, at

Jammu, has been declined without any reasonable basis. Claim of the petitioners had been contested on behalf of the respondents. According to

them barring the above referred petitioners, others were born on divisional cadre, as such they cannot make any grievance regarding shifting of the

head quarter and plea of estoppels as well as constructive resjudicate was also pressed into service to defeat the claim of petitioners. Action of

respondents was also supported by saying that the location of head quarters is an executive decision taken by the Government in public interest

and this court may not interfere therewith. It was also pointed out in the reply that earlier OWP No: 391/97 was filed by the Forest Ministerial

Staff Association, Jammu through its Secretary. Shri Som Dutt Verma, wherein the order of shifting of head quarters was questioned. Said Shri

Som Dutt Verma is petitioner no.30 in the present writ petition.

Copy of the judgement passed by this Court in OWP No:391/97 has been filed as Annexure PC with the writ petition. Its perusal indicates that

it was filed by Shri Som Dutt Verma as Secretary of Forest Ministerial Staff Association, Jammu as well as in his individual capacity and in

representative capacity. Amongst other things it has been observed by the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition as under:

It is nowhere stated by the petitioner that the Association is a registered Association, therefore, I am not treating this as a petition on behalf of the

Association, but as a petition on behalf of the petitioner in his individual capacity who has failed to show any right to continue at Jammu and not to

move with the Headquarter."" Finally the writ came to be dismissed.

Again it appears that the entire staff working in the Circle Office that was ordered to be shifted, who have questioned the shifting of head quarter

to Rajouri.

Petitioners cannot dictate that because head quarters of a particular circle have been not shifted from Jammu, therefore the head quarter of the

Circle, which had been ordered to be shifted, should also be retained here. So far impugned order dated 21121996 is concerned; it is in the nature

of a fall out of Annexure PA. Where to locate its offices is purely the prerogative of the executive authorities. Purpose for shifting the headquarters

of Circle in question from Jammu to Rajouri appears to be better and proper management of affairs of Forests of District Rajouri Poonch and

SubDistrict Reasi. Besides this, administrative and public convenience are other relevant and material circumstances which, in fact, appear to have

been taken care of by the authorities concerned while ordering the shifting of head quarters. This court cannot loose sight of the fact that keeping in

view the vast area, difficult terrain as well as its topographical and geographical location of the districts for which this Circle is meant, it would

enable the respondents to have a close as well as better and effective supervision over the forest, which fall within this circle. In fact this matter had

been decided by the Cabinet in the year 1980 and orders had been issued for shifting of the head quarters of respective circles as far back as in

the year 1981. This position is clear from Annexure PA, Government Order dated 2021981, referred to hereinabove, but the head quarters were

not shifted.

In addition to this, judgement passed by this court in OWP No: 391/97 on 2491997 vide Annexure PC to the writ petition squarely covers the

present case. Only distinction is the description of petitioners in both the writ petitions, although one of the petitioners was common in both the

cases i.e. Shri Som Dutt Verma, who had filed the earlier writ petition as Secretary of Forest Ministerial Staff Association, Jammu as well as in his

individual capacity being petitioner no.2, whereas he is petitioner no.30 in the present writ petition. Relief claimed in the earlier writ petition and the

present writ petition is the same, as government order dated 21121996 was impugned in the earlier writ petition and it has been impugned in the

present writ petition also. Thus the findings recorded therein clearly operate as resjudicate so far petitioner no.30 is concerned. In addition to this,

the matter is squarely covered by a decision of this court reported in AIR 1996 J&K 63, ""Nath Ram Bhagat & others Vs State & others"" and

AIR1988 SC 1681, ""J. R. Raghupathy etc. Vs. State of A. P. & others"".

So far the plea that the petitioners being district cadre employees cannot be shifted from Jammu District to Rajouri is concerned; it also does not

hold the ground. Stand of the respondents is specific in this behalf. Petitioners 9,15, 27 & 32 are stated to have been detailed to work at some

other places, whereas petitioner no.26 is attached in the office of Conservator of Forest, Jammu and petitioners 21,22 & 23 were casual laborers.

Other petitioners being divisional cadre employees cannot make any grievance. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners this stand of respondents

has not been controverter by them, rather the stand of petitioners is, that had the shifting of West Circle been ordered to meet the exigency and to

improve the Forest Department, the petitioners would have happily accepted the same. But, since it is discriminatory and has been made with

malafide considerations, therefore it is not acceptable to them. This plea is firstly without any basis and as already discussed except petitioners 9,

15, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27 & 32, others cannot make any grievance. 10 No other point is urged.

This writ petition was admitted and finally heard & disposed of after admission with the consent of parties.

As a result of aforesaid discussion there is no merit in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Experts interim order dated

4121997 shall stand vacated. No costs.