STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. V. RANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Karnataka has filed the review petitions against the judgment dated 07.04.2015, passed in W.P. Nos. 33614-615/2015, by a learned Division Bench of this Court. By the said judgment, this court had quashed the order dated 20.03.2014, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein the learned Tribunal had dismissed the O.A. filed by the respondents. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondents had challenged their non-promotion to the post of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (' APCCF', for short). The learned Division Bench not only set aside the order dated 20.03.2014, but also directed the State to grant promotion to the respondents, to settle the arrears of salary, and to re-fix the pension payable to the respondents while holding that they were entitled to the post of APCCF.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 28.05.1983, Mr. V. Rangaswamy, the respondent No. 1, had entered the Indian Forest Service. He was promoted to the post of Chief Conservator of Forest ('CCF', for short) on 30.05.2007. He retired from the IFS on 30.11.2010. On the other hand, Mr. K. S. Aralikatti, the respondent No. 2, was initially appointed on 18.05.1978, and was inducted in the IFS on 27.11.1985. He was promoted on the post of CCF on 29.05.2009. He retired on 30.10.2010.

(3.) According to the respondents, after having completed twenty-five years of service, they were eligible for promotion to the next higher post of APCCF. Further according to them, while they were working as CCF, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest ('PCCF', for short) sent a list of thirty CCFs to the Government for considering their promotion to the post of APCCF. He suggested that due to stagnation in the service, CCFs could be promoted to the post of APCCF and given ex-cadre appointments. By another letter, the PCCF recommended that the case of respondent No. 1 should be considered as he is about to retire on 30.11.2010. However, notwithstanding his suggestions, the Government did not consider the respondents - promotion inter alia on the ground that no vacancies were available, and in case the CCF were to be promoted there would be lack of manpower in the cadre of DCF. However, after retiring from the service, the respondents discovered that immediately after their retirement, their batch mates from the batch of 1982-83 were promoted to the post of APCCF. Therefore, the respondents filed two O.As., namely O.A.No.514/2013, and 515/2013 before the learned Tribunal wherein they challenged their non-promotion to the post of APCCF. However, by order dated 20.02014, the learned tribunal dismissed the O.As. Thus, the respondents filed two writ petitions before this Court. By judgment dated 07.04.2015, the learned Division Bench allowed the writ petitions in the aforementioned terms. Hence, these review petitions before this Court.