SHRI MANOHAR S/O NAGORAO DUMBHARE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.A. Pathak, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Gode, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in Jan. 1970 and after completing training, he was posted/promoted as Forester w.e.f. 01.02.1973. According to the petitioner, the next promotional post in hierarchy is Range Forest Officer. According to the petitioner, the Government of Maharashtra by the Resolution dated 4th July, 1979 has provided that 75% posts of Range Forest Officers are to be filled up by nomination and 25% posts are to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Forester. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are required to prepare and maintain the circle-wise gradation selection list of Foresters and the 25% posts of Range Forest Officers are required to be filled from the circle-wise seniority list. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Foresters working in Aurangabad, Pune, Kolhapur, Amravati, Nashik, Dhule and Nagpur were promoted on the basis of length of service in the cadre and though he was working as Forester from Feb. 1973 and several employees junior to him, who were working in other circles, were given promotion for the post of Range Forest Officer, he was not given the promotion as Range Forest Officer till he file the complaint before the Industrial Court in 1993. The petitioner complained that the Range Forest Officers from other circles were transferred to Nagpur Circle which has resulted in denying the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Range Forest Officer in the 25% posts required to be filled up by promotion. The petitioner filed the complaint before the Industrial Court under Sec. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971 ") contending that the action of the respondents in not giving promotion to the petitioner for the post of Range Forest Officer amounted to unfair labour practise under item Nos.5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the Act of 1971.

(3.) The respondents opposed the claim made by the petitioner. The respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered, however, the departmental inquiry was pending against him and, therefore, he was not given promotion earlier. It is submitted that the petitioner is given promotion for the post of Range Forest Officer on 26th Feb., 2004 and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. The case of the respondents is that the persons whose names are given by the petitioner alleging that though they are juniors are given promotion for the post of Range Forest Officers were working in other circles and they are promoted as Range Forest Officers in the quota of those circles and not in the 25% posts of the Nagpur Circle from where the claim of the petitioner for promotion is to be considered. It is submitted that the grievance as made above by the petitioner that the juniors to the petitioner are promoted, is not correct.