MUNI BATOOL Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government Order No.14-FST of 1988 dated 12.01.1988 is reproduced as under:

(2.) Petitioner initially came to be appointed on ad hoc basis as Jr. Assistant for a period of three months in the Wildlife Department by Chief Wildlife Warden vide Order No.211 of 1986-87 dated 10.02.1987 and in terms of Order No.110 of 1987-88 dated 03.09.1987 petitioner was adjusted as regular Jr. Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.800-1500. In terms of Order No.14-FST of 1988 dated 12.01.1988 the petitioner was transferred to the office of Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu. The Chief Conservator of Forests was directed to locate a post in his office and draw salary of the petitioner. Petitioner was relieved by the Chief Wildlife Warden vide Order No.143 of 1987-88 dated 21.01.1988 on 15.01.1988. Vide Order No.1843-48/Bix 36 dated 22.02.1988, the Chief Conservator of Forests ordered that the petitioner will work as Jr. Assistant in receipt section in place of Mrs Kanwal Nain Kour. Thereafter in terms of office order dated 10.11.1989 the services of the petitioner alongwith one Abdul Hamid, Head Assistant was placed at the disposal of Administrative Officer, Forest Recoveries Jammu. The petitioner was allowed to subscribe to G.P.Fund in the Forest Department which is substantiated by annexure-G of the writ petition. In terms of Annexure-H, which in terms of para 10 of the writ petition is claimed to be seniority list issued by the Forest Department in respect of members of service borne on Jr. Assistant cadre of the service, petitioner figures at S.No.14. Petitioner has been held entitled to get first in situ promotion vide Forest Order No.22 of 1997 dated 21.11.1997, which order has been issued by the Conservator of Forests, W.Plan and Research Circle. The petitioner, it appears, had made an application for fixation of her seniority, which resulted in issuance of communication from the office of Conservator of Forests, Working Plan and addressed to the Chief Wildlife Warden dated 08.08.1999. Perusal of the said communication reveals that the Chief Wild Life Warden was informed that the petitioner is working in Plan Circle. It is also brought to the notice of the Chief Wildlife Warden that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Wildlife Department and transferred to the Forest Department. The communication also states that the petitioner is holding her lien and promotion prospectus in parent department and request was made for fixing her seniority and also to call her back and her adjustment in the Wild Life Department.

(3.) Respondents have filed objections. In the objections it is admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in Wild Life Department and thereafter in terms of Government Order she was transferred to the Forest Department. At para 9 of the objections it is submitted that para 10 of the writ petition relates to record and that record is not denied. It is further admitted in para 9 of the objections that place of posting of the petitioner shown in annexure-H is correct. However, it is further submitted that this would not amount to absorption of petitioner in the Forest Department. The claim of the petitioner that she has been appointed by way of transfer in the Forest Department is also denied by the respondents in the objections. The respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner has misinterpreted the orders.