BISWAMITRA AGASTI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and five others were selected for appointment as Forest Guards following a test and they joined as Forest Guards in the Afforestation Division of Bolangir as per order dated 5 -2 -1964. One R.N. Sahu, who had joined as a Forest. Guard almost at the same time in the Sambalpur Afforestation Division, came into the Bolangir Afforestation Division when that Range was amalgamated with Bolangir. The Petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and the said R.N. Sahu were called for written test and interview for filing up two promotional vacancies in the post of Forester. The Petitioner and Sri Sahu were selected as Fortsters by order dated 21 -4 -1970. Opposite party No. 4 came to be so promoted on 26 -11 -1972. The Petitioner worked as Forester from 4 -5 -1970 upto 31 -12 -1974 when he was reverted with effect from 1 -1 -1975 along with opposite party No. 4 and the said Sri R.N. Sahu. All the three preferred appeals before the Conservator of Forests challenging the reversion. By order dated 8 -9 -1975, the Conservator (opposite party No. 3) directed the Divisional Forest Officers of Sambalpur and Rayagada to absorb the three persons including the Petitioner. That order read thus:

(2.) A counter has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 and the Petitioner's claim has been denied. There is, however, no dispute that the Petitioner is senior to opposite parties 4, 5 and 6.

(3.) WE are inclined to think in the premises that while implementing the order under Annexure 4, the Petitioner's claim to continuous service in preference to that of opposite parties 4 to 6 was lost sight of and the Petitioner was denied service advantages while persons junior to him had been given the same. Since the Petitioner was not responsible for this unfortunate situation, there is no reason as to why he should not be entitled to the advantages, such as continuity of service and payment of salary: Ordinarily, when a Government servant does not render service he should not be entitled to salary, but this is a case where, while the Petitioner was anxious to be in service, in breach of rules applicable to him, juniors were retained while he was kept out. In these circumstances, we think, the Petitioner should be treated as if he was in service and given all advantages including salary for the period he was out of employment.