LAWS(SC)-2007-5-139

GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE CADRE FOREST OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Decided On May 15, 2007
GOPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE CADRE FOREST OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of four Civil Appeals, they being Civil Appeal Nos.1041-1044 of 2004, all of which have been filed by the present appellant.

(2.) THE appellant who is an employee of the Forest Department of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands comes before us in the above appeals challenging a common judgment passed by the High Court in two writ petitions whereby the judgment in favour of the writ petitioner passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short) was upset allowing the writ petitions. THE appellant has also challenged the further orders passed by the High Court dismissing the Review Petitions filed by the appellant. THE High Court vide its judgment set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed two writ petitions, one filed by the State Cadre Forest Officers Association and another by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. THEy were W.P. C.T.No.209 of 1999 and W.P.C.T.No.246 of 1999. THE judgment of the Tribunal was itself passed in review whereby the Review Petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal was upset and the Original Application filed by the appellant was allowed. THE following facts would be necessary to understand the controversy involved.

(3.) ON the basis of these Rules, it was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that particularly after the amendment in 1973 the post of AMM became equivalent to that of ACF. The 1963 Rules as well as 1973 Rules were still in vogue and, therefore, there was a channel for promotion to the post of DCF from the post of ACF as was originally provided and now from the post of an equivalent grade. Since the 1973 the post of AMM became equivalent to the post of ACF and, therefore, he was also bound to be considered for promotion to the post of DCF as per the 1963 Rules as amended in 1973. The appellant also relied upon the Gradation Lists from which the appellant sought to read the equivalence of his post to the post of ACF.