1. S. Balakrishna v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of [ndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the action of the respondents are not permitting the petitioners to discharge their duties from 01 .08.2019 as a Forest Protection Watchers, without their being any orders or any notice, though, the petitioners are working since 2008 on wards under the respondents control, the said action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in violation of Art. '14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and declare the same as bad in law and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners to discharge their duties as Forest Protection Watchers / Base Camp Watcher in their respective places with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners to discharge their duties as a Forest Protection Watchers in their respective places, while disposing of the representation dated '16.09.2019 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: GP FOR FOREST The Court made the following: ORDER CAY 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 22821 OF 2OL9 ORDER: Petitioners !\,ere initially engaged as Forest Protection Watchers in 2OO8 under the control of Respondents 4 and 5. Since their appoir-rtments, respondents prepared annual agreements for pctitioners, with the latest agreement period covering from O 1.04.20 19 to 31 .O3.2O2O. There are around 2OOO Forest Protection Watchcrs employed across various Forest Ranges in Te langana, \,ith approximately 130 individuals working in Amrabad Tiger Rescrve Fores[ Division. Of these, 60 individuals continued thcir scrvices, whilc 70 others, including petitioncrs, have been orally instructed not to attend their duties. It is the case oI petitioners that since their engagement, petitioners consistenLly worked without any negative remarks and receivcd salary that has gradually increased fro m Rs 2,5OO I in 2OO8 to Rs Despite this, petitioncrs made several representations 7,l9Ol- per monrh. requesting an increase in their salaries, proposing enhancement from Rs. 7 ,5OO I - to Rs. \2,OOO I -. These requests were 1 foruardecl to higher authorities by the 3'd respondcnt, in proceedings drrtcd 1U.01.2O17 and 01.08.2017, but thc issue remalns unre solved. It further stated, petitioners made represen tatiolr s to the 1"t respondent concerning salary hike, particularly for the Forest Protection Watchcrs in Amrabacl Tigcr Rescrve Fore's1- DiVision- In response to thesr: requests, Governmcnt issued Memo dated 28.06.2O 17 directing the 2'd rcspondcnt to look into the matter and take neccssary :rction, but no results have been forthcoming. Dcspite their years of dedicated service, petitioners are still receiving ven' modest rvages of Rs. 7,19O/- per month. Thcy rvere hoping for a favorable resolution to their rcqucst, but in an uncxpeclod turn of events, respondents orallf instructed petitioncrs nol to re port for duty from O 1.08.20 19 orlwarcls. Petitioners werc left rn a difficult position, being denied their right to u'ork. without any formal ordcrs rrr notir:es from the authoritics, dc spite their agreement being valid till 31.o3.2020. Thereforc, th€\ attcmpted to reach out to the authorities, requesting perrnission to resume their duties as per the agreement, bul uerc met rvith no posittve response. As a result, it is stated, petitioners and their families have suffered hnancially. Petitioner's further case is that on 16.09.2019, they submitted a detailed representation to the respondents outlining thcir grievances, emphasizing that they have been working for over 12 years and that thcy have no other employment option but as Forest Protection Watchers. Hon eve r, peritioners were not aliowed to continue their g.ork, while neu, individuals were hired in September 2O 19. According to Lhern, their termination from service is illegal, arbitrarv, unreasonable, and discriminatory. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. The Forest Divisional Officer on behalf of respondents hled counter contending inter alia that petitioners were initially engaged in 2008 to u.ork as Forcst Protection Watchers in Check Posts/ Strike Force on purely temporary basis, with a consolidated monthly r,r'age through an agreement made between petitioners and Member Secretary of Forest Development Agency (FDA), which includcs Respondents 4 and

5. As per terms and conditions o[ the agreement, they were employed on temporary basis, rvithout any right to probation or permanent employment. The agreement stipulated that -+ petitioncrs could be removed from service at any time u ithout prior notice or assignment of reasons. It was lurther mentioned th:rt no right to employment under the Forest Devclopment Agcncy or the (ior.ernment. Respondents deny thc claim tl.rat petitioners qerc barred from duties without orders from highcr authorities. It is argucd that the decision not to continue petitioncrs services was made following specific instructions lrom highcr aLlt horities, as outlined in the letter lrom Principal ChieI Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Hydt:rab.rd dated

11.07.2019 irncl lctter dated 27.O7.2019, by which Executivc Cornmittec of N:rtional OAMPA had not approved continuation o[ Strike Forces. Check Posts, Dog Squads or working plans under CAMPA. Thel also instructed that no furthcr expenditure be incurred on tht:sc items and a review and ra tionalizaliott ol manpo\\'cr, including reduction of staff, was to bc carried out. Based on these instructions, it is stated, respondenls cleci<lcd to discontinue thr: serviccs of petitioners. It is contended thereforc, Lhat despite thr: :rgreement being valid till 31.03.2020, thcy were authorized, under the agreement, to remove petitioncrs from sen,ice .,vithor-rt issuing lormal notice. Y ) It is asserted that petitioners have no right to seek continuation of services as their engagement was purely on temporary basis. Hence, contends that there is no merit in Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy', learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleadcr for Services-l on behalf of the 1"t respondent and learned (]ovcrnmcnt Pleadcr for Forests on behalf of Respondents 2 to 5-

4. Having heard learned counscl on eithcr side and having perused the material on record, it is clear that petitioners were engaged as Forest Protection Watchers in 2OO8 and were governed by annual agreements, rvith their services extended year after year. The terms of the agreement clearly stipulated that engagement was purely temporarv, without any right to permanency or probatron. Horvever, thc case of petitioners is though agreements were valid till 31.03.2020, their services were discontinued in September, 2019 itself arbitrarily and without any notice or orders, and that new recruits were hired in September 2019 despite their valid agreements. Though respondents contend that discontinuation of petitioners' services was based on instructions from higher l 6 { authoritios, specilicallv the National CAMPA Executive Committcc, rvhich issued a directive to rationalize manpower and cliscontrr-rlre certain operations, including Strike Force and Check Posts. due to financial constraints and they also refer to Cir<:ulars issut'd by the Principal Chief Conservalor of Forests stating that scrviccs of petilioners were no longer required undcr CAMPA funds. it is to be observed that the action ol respondents in discontinuing services of petitioners u'ithout issuing formrrl ordcrs or noticcs, and without providing any opprrrtunity. ilppcars to be arbitrary and unreasonzrble.

5. PeLitioncrs u,ere, admittedly, discharging clutics assigned to i:hcm and their services ought lo have been continued, instcad o[ recruiting other contractual employees. In this regarri, thc lar,r. laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra) is very clear. lt reads as under: ' Thc normal rule, of course, rs regular recruitment through the Prt'scribed agency but exigencies of administration ma-\' sonretirrcs call lrrr an acihoc or temporan appointment lo be made [n such a srtrialion, c[[orL should ahvays be to replacc such an adhoc/ ternporan emplo\ ee tl a regularly selected employec as earl_r, as possible. Su('lr :r temporan' emplovee ma_v also compete along with othcrs ftrr sur'lr regulirr selection / appointment. tf he gets selected, well alr(i goo(1, bti: ii he does not. he must give wal to the regularh selected candicialc. The al)porntment of the regularll selected candi(late cannot 7 be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employee. Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only b-y a regularly' selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authorit]'." In view of the settled legal position, it can safely be held that thc attempts of Respondents 3 and 4 to engage the services of Protection Watchers for Base Camps on outsourcing basis, through communication dated 30.09.20 I 9 is illcgal and arbitrary. \ \

6. Apart from that, it is to be observed that petitioners were engaged for years in hazardous and cssential duties, yel they were retrenched without proper jusdfication. Their sudden retrenchment, coupled with recruitment o[ fresh contractual I I employees, indicates unfair labour practicc. Furthermore, thc representation dated 16.09.2O 19 submitted by petitioncrs to the Forest Divisional Officer, Amrabad to consider their case for continuation in service was not considered yeL. In thc light of the same, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Pctition deserves to be allou.ed. 8

7. r\t:r:orrtr nglv- the Writ Petition is allorved directing respondcnts to rcinstate the retrenched petitioners into service, drrlv considt'r-ing the representation dated 16.O9.12O19 u.ithin a pcriod of forrr u'ccks from the date of receipt of zr copy of this order. No costs. 8 closed To, Nliscellaneous Applications, if an1, shall stnnd SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (t ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana - 500 O22.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Head of the Forest Force (Aranya Bhavan), Saifabad, Hyderabad. \

3. The Additional Chief Conservator of Forest / Filed Director, Amarabad Tiger Reserve, Achampet, Nagarkurnool District.

4. The Forest Divisional Officer, Amarabad Division, Nagarkumool District. 5. The Forest Divisional Officer, Achhampet Division, Nagarkurnool District. 6. One CC to SRI C RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CCs to GP FOR FOREST, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies BSR BS b HIGH COURT DATED: 1110212025 $ t ;,c S14, U t a ( .at ORDER WP.No.22821 o12019 ) o o 2 5 FEB 2025 * Da.s."ATca cO ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @fqt' 4a,-- -4"\'d