SUMAN BHOWMIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India-respondents.

(2.) By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The brief facts are: The petitioners are serving as Forest Ranger. The government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change after considering the representations of various associations of Range Officers serving in different States of the country, for regulating their service conditions, constituted a committee vide office memorandum no. 3-7/94-RT dated 29.09.1995 and corrigendum no. 3-7/94-RT dated 12.01.1996. The government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest constituted the said committee with various terms and conditions. On 25.01.2007 the Director of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a letter to the Joint Secretary, 6th pay commission recommending for giving a uniform pay scale to the persons belonging to subordinate forest service, throughout the country. In the said communication the Director of MOEFCS recommended the parity of pay scales and the recommendations of the pay scale of Range Forest Officer as Rs. 7450-11500/-. The Committee, namely, Pandey Committee stated that Range Forest Officers play a crucial role in the protection and management and sustainable development of the forest resources within their respective jurisdiction. The Pandey Committee recommended the minimum educational qualification, recruitment through the State Public Service Commission, all the Range officers should be declared as subordinate gazetted officers, etc. The respondents amended the recruitment rules for the post of Forest Range under the Forest Department, Government of Tripura on 29.06.2000. In the said recruitment rules the qualification and the process of recruitment were amended, but, surprisingly, other recommendations of the Pandey Committee as well as the approval of MOEFCS were not amended though most of the states of India have adopted the recommendations of the Pandey Committee in its entirety. The petitioners made several representations to implement the Pandey Committee report and the recommendation therein, in respect of Pay and status of the Forest Range Officers. Despite that the respondents did not pay any heed to implement the recommendation of Pandey Committee.