WRIT PETITION fS^ No. 3006 OF 2005 v. State of M.P. (Now C.G.) & Ors.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS^ No. 3006 OF 2005 PETITIONER Prabhat Kumar Victor & Others RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of M.P. (Now C.G.) & Others AND WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3019 OF 2005 PETITiONER Arun Kumar Sharma & Others ^, RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of M.P. (Now C.G.) & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. ORDER (OPEN COURT) (Passed on 06th February, 2013) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. ^

1. W.P.(S) No.3019/2005 and W.P.(S) No.3006/2005 involve common facts and question of law require common disposal.

2. The petitioners, by these petitions, seek a direction to the respondent authorities that the Van-sewak and Forester be treated at par for the purpose of grant of kramonnati, pay scale and other benefits.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners No.1 to 33 in W.P.(S) No.3006/05 "Sewak") and petitioners No.1 to 9 in were appointed as Van-sewak (forshort W.P.(S) No.3019/05 were appointed as Assistant Forest Extension Officer t(AFEO})) through proper selection, pursuant to the advertisement (for short dated 3rd November, 1983, published in Dainik Deshbandhu (Annexure A-1). The qualification prescribed in the advertisement for AFEO was three years course graduate in science subject or equivatent examination having mathematics, physics, chemistry, zoology or agriculture subjects intermediate examination and for Sewak, the minimum qualification was higher secondary or equivalent to the said examination. /' . ^•-i, ^^rf^?' IINI—; 1 ^ QC^ The services of the petitioners were transferred by the notification dated

20.07.2001 (Annexure R-1) to Temtorial Forest Division. AFEOs were treated as Forester in the territorial division. Accordingly, the petitioners started working in the same capacity. Sewaks were transferred on the post of Forest Guards. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the quatification of the Sewak are at par with the Forester and qualification of AFEO is at par with Deputy Ranger, thus, they ought to have been posted as Forester and Deputy Ranger respectively. There is no dispute that the salary granted to a Sewak was at par with the Forest Guard in territorial division and salary granted to an AFEO was at par with Forester. On the other hand, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing with Shri Nigam, learned Panel Lawyer, submits that there was no separate rules for appointment of Sewaks and AFEOs. They were part of the forest department as only one division was Social Forestry like other wild life and temtorial divisions. Thus, the petitioners cannot say that it was a different project or different department. However, it is submitted in the return that no rules are prescribed for social Forestry. M.P. Class-111 (Non Ministerial) tcthe Rules, 1967s') are not Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967 (for short applicable to the employees of social Forestry. It was further stated that the Rules are not consideration in its affidavit dated 04.01.2000. Contention of the petitioner that the minimum quatification required for AFEO was equal to Deputy Ranger and qualification for Sewak was equal Forester has not been established by any document.

8. Normally the qualification prescribed for AFEO and Sewak is common in so many posts, as there cannot be more than graduation and less than higher secondary for appointment. Even for the post of Divisional Forest Officer, who also comes through recruitment, the minimum qualification is graduation and on that logic the AFEO cannot be treated at par with any senior officer who ^ ,,/..r:fE"Sy5 •/' .^ I y;^ 1 \0,^ has come through regular process and under different rules and different conditions drawing more salary. There is no gainsaying that a Sewak was given the same pay scale, as that of Forest Guard and an AFEO was having the same pay scale, as that of Forester, right from the date of appointment of Sewak in December, 1983. The petitioners have not raised any issue before the petitioners were transferred to other department. No document has been produced before this Court, whereunder, the petitioners were transferred to ^ territorial division. Though according to the petitioners, it was not a transfer simplicjtor from one division or section to other division of section. Thus, this ground cannot be entertained at this stage. The equal qualification alone cannot be the criteria for grant of parity or higher status when the scale is one or the same. (See: State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Pramod Bhartiya and Others1, State of Haryana and Other v. Charanjit Singh and Others2, S.C. Chandraand Others v. State ofJharkhand and Others3 & State ofPunjab andAnother v. Surjit Singh and Others4).

9. Learned counsel submits that further case of the petitioners is that as admitted by the respondent authorities that Rule 63 of the Rules, 1967 will not be applicable in case of Sewaks & AFEOs and till date no rules have been framed in this respect. No direction can be issued to the State Government to frame a particular rutes or make existing rutes applicabte to the employees. Till rules are framed the petitioners, would be governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment and executive instructions, ^ any.

10. In view offoregoing, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge