Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Conservator of Forests and Director of Sanjay Gandhi National Park Division, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 17 June 2021 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 496 of 2020 and the order dated 7 February 2023 in Review Application No. 22 of 2022. The respondents, Anil Bhagwan Baviskar and Nana Baburao Sonawane, were engaged as Van Majoor (Forest Labourers) at the Lion Safari Park of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali, since 1998. The Government Resolution dated 16 October 2012 provided for absorption of forest labourers who had put in 240 days of service in any of the five years during the period from 1 November 1994 to 30 June 2004. The respondents claimed eligibility and sought absorption, but their request was rejected. They filed Original Application No. 496 of 2020 before the Tribunal. The State resisted, taking a vague stand that the respondents did not fulfill the criteria and that records were lost in floods on 29 August 2017. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing absorption, holding that the State's failure to maintain records cannot disentitle the respondents. The State's review application was rejected. The High Court, in the present petition, examined whether the Tribunal's order suffered from any error. The Court noted that the State failed to produce any records to disprove the respondents' claim and that the Tribunal had correctly placed the burden on the State. The Court also held that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, and the State did not demonstrate any such error. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's orders were upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Absorption of Forest Labourers - Government Resolution dated 16 October 2012 - Eligibility Criteria - The respondents, engaged as Van Majoor since 1998, claimed absorption under GR dated 16 October 2012 which required 240 days of service in any five years between 1 November 1994 and 30 June 2004. The State opposed on ground of lost records. The Tribunal allowed the application, holding that failure to maintain records cannot disentitle the workers. The High Court upheld the decision, finding no error in the Tribunal's reasoning. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - The State filed a review application which was rejected by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-agitate the same issues. The State failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 11-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are entitled to absorption in service under the Government Resolution dated 16 October 2012 despite the State's failure to produce records, and whether the Tribunal's order suffers from any error apparent on record warranting review.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order dated 17 June 2021 and the review rejection order dated 7 February 2023. The respondents are entitled to absorption in service in terms of the Government Resolution dated 16 October 2012.
Law Points
- Absorption of forest labourers
- Government Resolution dated 16 October 2012
- 240 days service requirement
- failure to maintain records
- review jurisdiction limited to error apparent on record
