BAIDHARA PANDA Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA REPRESENTED THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the office Order Dated 22nd January, 2008 passed by the Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. by which the Petitioners who were working as Field Assistants of Bhubaneswar (C) Zone Office/Bhubaneswar (C) Division were transferred and posted as such in divisions noted against their name against existing vacancies of Watchers as they were found to be surplus.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners were appointed as Mate, which was later on redesignated as Field Assistants, which is a Class III post The Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. by office order No. 877 dated 15th November, 2006, circulated the final seniority list of the Field Assistants after disposal of the representation received from the employees concerned on the provisional seniority list and reports of the Divisional Managers of OFDC Ltd. The said seniority list is enclosed as Annexure -1 to the Writ Petition. It is a combined seniority list of the Field Assistants. It is the case of the Petitioners that while they were continuing as Field Assistants, pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors and on administrative ground the Petitioners and some other Field Assistants as mentioned in Annexure 3 were declared as surplus Field Assistants of Bhubaneswar (C) Zone Office/Bhubaneswar (C) Division and were transferred and posted as such in different divisions mentioned against their name against existing vacancies of Watchers. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that there is one seniority list of the Field Assistants which has been prepared taking into consideration the date of their entry into Corporation Service. No seniority list is maintained unit wise and therefore there was no question of surplus Field Assistant in Bhubaneswar Zone. Many Field Assistant who are pretty junior to the Petitioners are allowed to continue as such whereas the Petitioners have been transferred to other Divisions against existing vacancies of Watchers which amounts to reversion.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that Rule 39 of the Service Rules of the O.F.D.C. Ltd. provides for retrenchment on reduction of establishment/abolition of posts. But such retrenchment is required to be made by following the principle prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act, i.e., last come first go. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that the O.F.D.C. was having surplus manpower as per the approved reorganization and restructuring plan by the Board of Directors and the management decided to reduce the excess manpower through compulsory V.R.S., C.R.S. or retrenchment. Since the Petitioners, as stated by the Opposite Parties, were found surplus, Instead of retrenchment, they were transferred as such to different divisions against existing vacancies of Watchers. Undisputedly the grade and nature of job of Watchers is lower than the Field Assistants. Even though instead of retrenchment, if the Opposite Parties thought it fit to redeploy the surplus staff of one grade/post in a lower one, the same should have been done on the principle of last come first go and after obtaining their consent. We, therefore, dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Opposite Party -corporation to prepare a seniority list of Field Assistants on the basis of the date of joining and if there is necessity of reducing surplus manpower, the same shall be done on the basis of last come first go. If, the authorities instead of retrenching the surplus Field Assistants intend to redeploy them by way of transfer to different divisions/zones against any other existing vacancy, the same shall be done after obtaining their consent/ willingness. This should be done within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order. Till then, no further action shall be taken pursuant to the impugned order. If the aforesaid exercise is not completed within the time specified, the order of transfer so far as the Petitioners are concerned shall be treated to have been cancelled and they should be restored back to their previous place of posting with all service benefits. If the Petitioners are not found surplus having regard to their date of entry into the service, the impugned order of transfer so far as they are concerned shall be cancelled and in that case they should be restored to their posts with all arrears of salary.