(^ ,-.j- CJ^ ^^^/e^ B3FOR3 TAS M.P. 3TATE SDMII'aSTPATIVB .TRXBUNAL PRIHCXPa- BEKai AT JA3SLPUR. ftpgliqan^ ^cf 2000. .R,K.S'hrivastava, aged about 58 years, s-.n r.f Lsts Shri Jsnuna Prasad shrive'steva. Occupation-F"rest Reager Dh.caai». prnject Rsage,Kiarayan3ur, 'B./- -i?i pal Ward, K"ndagarn,Distts Ees-? Vers us• Respendents. ssl) .Ihe State "fM,P. Ti-irnugh -H-ie Secretary Ff'rest-.Dspr Mantraiaya Vallabh ghawan, B'.";';^: 2).Chief Gr'nservatcr of Forest, Govt. of M.P. F"rest Dept. Bhopal. AEELICaTION UNDER S3CTICN 19 OF TOE^ <i©MINISTRATIV3 TRIBUNALS__ AC3 s, 1_°85 . DETAIL3 OF 'FH.S .<S>PL3:GATION> 15 • Particulars r-f the Betitinners. As menticaed abovs ia fhe cause title, 2). Particulars of •i:he rssp"ndeatss- As raeaticned a'oove in -B-ie cause title, C"ntda„ .. ..^•^aaa 1 k.,^.-^^ 1as"y ^-^•^1''' >ingle_Bench: Hon'bteShri ira Moh. R. K. Shrivastava Versus The State of M. P. and another Shri Subhash Yadav, counsei for the petitionsr. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1 . (Passed on 03r of May, Petitioner has filed Shis petition aggrieved by an order dated 22-07-200( exure A-3), by which, he has been reverted to the post of Deputy Ranger. (2) Case of the petiiioner is that he was initially appointed as Forester vide order dated 25-10-1865 and his name finds piace at S.No.424. Later on, he was confirmed as Forester with effect from 01-03-1977. Petitioner was thereafter promoted on the post of Deputy Ranger vide order dated 15-09-1978. Further case of the petitioner is thaS he was confirmed on the post of Deputy Ranger vide order dated 01-04-1988. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted as Ranger vide order dated 30-01-1996, as is reflected from the details contained in the gradation iist (Annexure A-2). Later on, impugned order was passed on 22-07-2000 (Annexure A-3), by v/hich, petitioner has been reverted to the post of Deputy Ranger. (3) Submission of learned counsel for She petltioner is that his reversion is iliegal unsusfainable in !aw inasmuch as before issulng the order of reversion, no rtunity of hearing was afforded. Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that ~V-'S£:.'!£'iS!S^,'S!'iSSSSKSSS ^.\ :.;S!% | "'t J i, >.--••'.<f 2- IIS*f --/ basis for his reversion from the post of Ranger appears to be a wrong date shown as. his date of appointment as Forester. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was appointed as Forester on 25-10-1965, which is evident from Annexure A-1, his reversion by treating him as having been appointed as Forester on 15-7-1978 is clearly illega!. Had an opportunity of hearing been afforded to the petitioner, he would have satisfied the authority that there was no occasion to re'/ert him as he was appointsd as Forester on 25-10-1965. (4) On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that occasion to revert Rangers to the post of Deputy Ranger arose on account of order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Original Apptication No.480 of 2000 (M.L. Pare vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 10-07-2000 (Annexure R-3). The Tribunal held that promotion of Deputy Rangers to the post of Rangers on the basis of their inter se seniority without considering their seniority as Forester, was not proper, and those Deputy Rangers, who were appointed later as Forester, were considered and promoted eariisr on the post of Ranger because of circ!e level ssr.iority leading to an anomalous situatii^^^^^SBunal therefore directed preparation of seniority !ist of Deputy Rangers on the basis oftheir initia! appointment as Forester, and then promote as Ranger, those Deputy Rangers entitled to promotion on the basis of their appointment as Forester at earlier point of time. Submission of iearned counsel for the respondents is that the aforesaid order of the Trifeunai was not chaiienged by the petitioner and there is no materiai on record to show that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunai, therefore, there was no occasion to give any opportunity of hearing as the impugned order of reversion has been passed in compiiance ofthe order passed by the Tribunai. -J (5) From the perusal of the impugned order dated 22-07-2000, it is found that the very basis for reversion was re-arrangement and re-structuring of seniority status based on initial date of appointment as Forester. Petitioner has placed on record ^radation list Annexure A-1 & A-2. The service details of the petitioner as recorded in ths gradation list would show that the petitioner was initially appointed as Forester on 25-10-1965 and confirmed as such on 01-03-1977 and thereafter promoted as Deputy Ranger on 15-07-1978. However, impugned order of reversion shows the of petitioner's appointment on the post of Forester as 15-07-1978. An examination of the impugned order of reversion would show that those Foresters, who were appointed on or after 01-01-1972 suffered reversion. Under these circumstances, it cannot be ignored that had correct date of petitioner's appointment as Forester been noted, reversion of the petitioner might not have arisen at ali. Whlle ths petitioner asserts that he was appointed on 25-10-1965, which is reflected from ients own document Annexure A-1 & A-2, impugned order records petitioner's appointment as Forester on 15-07-1978. The matter therefore calls for an enquiry. Respondents therefore ought to have verified this aspect. Even in the return, the respondents have not disputed the averments made in the petition with regard to petitioner's appotntment as Forester nor have placed any material on record to show that petitioner was appointed as Forester on 15-07-1978 or he was llable to be iranted seniority onlywith effectfrom 15-07-1978. 5) -In this view of the matter, She impugned order in so far as the reversion of the present petitioner is concerned, cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 22- 07-2000 (Annexure A-3), in so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is set aside. It wouid be open for the respondents to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then take a decision in the case of the petitioner. !n view of the fact that this petition is being finally disposed of only on the ground of vioiation of principles of natural justice, there is no occasion for this Court to consider other aspects with regard to reversion in view of the order passed by the Tribunal and the same shall be decided in an appropriate case. It has been stated by the respondents that in view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 07-08-2000, the petitioner has not only been allowed to continue in sen/ice but given all the benefits of the post of Forest Ranger and finally retired from the post of Forest Ranger vide order dated 27-01-2001 with effect from 31-12-2051 (Annexure R-1). tt wouid be open for the respondents to take appropriate decision in this regard. (7) The petition is consequently a!!owed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge !!ffitfi