- (1.) PETITIONERS in this writ application, have prayed for issuance of a direction to the Respondent - State to grant the benefits of the A.C.P. Scheme to them in compliance of the letter No. 636/VI, Dated 08.03.2007 of the State Government and also to sanction the monetary benefits pursuant to the grant of the A.C.P. in the originally fixed higher grade.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would explain that the petitioners are posted as Forest Guard in the Forest Division under the Respondent No. 5. In terms of the Government Circular, after having completed 12 years of continuous service, the petitioners were entitled to the grant of the first A.C.P. and likewise, on completing 24 years of continuous service, they are entitled to the benefit of the second A.C.P. The petitioners' grievance is that except the petitioner no. 3, who was granted the benefit of the first A.C.P. Scheme, the remaining three writ petitioners have not been given even the benefits of the first A.C.P. By filing an interlocutory application seeking amendment to the original writ application for introducing certain facts relating to certain subsequent developments and the corresponding prayer to the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that during the pendency of this writ application, a proposal appears to have been made by the Finance Department of the State Government vide Annexure -5, whereby a new intermediary post in the name of the Head Forest Guard, is sought to be introduced above the post of Forest Guard, although the original post above the post of the Forest Guard, is Forester. On being promoted to the higher post, the petitioners would be entitled to the salary applicable to the aforesaid higher post i.e. the post of the Forester. The apprehension of the petitioners is that though the above proposal has not been finally converted into a sanctioned post but if it is finally sanctioned and a new intermediary post is created, the petitioners in the event of their being granted the benefits of the first and the second A.C.P., would be compelled to suffer a big loss. Learned counsel adds that demanding the grant of the benefits of the A.C.P. Scheme, the petitioners had submitted their respective representations before the concerned authorities of the Respondents but no response has been forthcoming from the Respondents. In this context, learned counsel would refer to the copies of the representations vide Annexure -1 series. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the Respondents would explain that the claim of the petitioners for grant of the monetary benefits under the A.C.P. Scheme, to the extent of the scale applicable to the post of Forester, is misconceived and the petitioners are not entitled to any such claim. It is sought to be explained that above the post of Forest Guard, in which the petitioners are working, the next higher post is that of the Head Forester in the pay -scale of Rs.3,200 -4,900/ -. It is further explained that the State Government has already constituted a Fitment Committee and a Fitment Appellate Committee and both the Committees after due consideration, have recommended the aforesaid hierarchy of Subordinate Forest Service in which the next higher post above the post of Forest Guard is that of Head Forester.
(3.) FROM the rival submissions, it appears that the Respondents have not denied or disputed the claim of the petitioners for the grant of the benefits of the A.C.P. Scheme. Controversy though, has been raised on the ground that the claim of the petitioners for grant of the scale applicable to the Foresters is misconceived in view of the fact that the next higher post above the post of Forest Guard is that of the Head Forester and if at all the petitioners are given the benefits of the A.C.P. Scheme, then the corresponding monetary benefits would be that of the post of Head Forest Guard and not Forester. It appears even from the counter affidavit of the Respondents that the creation of the new post of Head Forest Guard is at present only by way of a proposal by way of recommendation and no final decision on the same has been taken by the concerned authorities of the Respondents. In absence of a final decision on the proposal and a Notification affirming the creation of the additional intermediary post, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefits under the A.C.P. Scheme as per the existing hierarchy, to which the petitioners were entitled. It is not disputed that the original post above the post of the Forest Guard is that of Forester and had the petitioners been granted the benefits of A.C.P. as and when it fell due, the Forest Guards would have been entitled to the benefits of the scale applicable to the post of the Forester. This being the present situation, the Respondents -authorities should consider the claim of the petitioner in proper perspective.;