Bombay High Court | Denial of Permanency to Forest Labourers for Want of Sanctioned Posts Held Exploitative | Workers at Sanjay Gandhi National Park Entitled to Regular Status
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that workers employed for decades by the Forest Department cannot be deprived of permanent status on the ground of absence of sanctioned posts. The Court quashed the order of the Industrial Court that had earlier dismissed the complaint of workers seeking permanency. It directed the Respondents to compute outstanding differential wages and confer permanent status to the Petitioners within a stipulated period. The Court stated that continuance of such employment without granting social security benefits amounted to exploitation and could not be countenanced. The Writ Petition was accordingly allowed, and directives were issued for compliance within a strict timeline.
The matter involved 22 workers classified as “Van Majoor” (Forest Labourers) in Group D, engaged in duties such as labourers, watchmen, cooks, and gardeners at the Sanjay Gandhi National Park since 2003. Their responsibilities included highly risky tasks such as cleaning cages of wild animals including tigers, lions, leopards, and hyenas, cutting meat, feeding and nursing the animals, administering medicines, and other ancillary duties. Due to the nature of their work, the animals had become accustomed to the workers, rendering their services indispensable.
Over the years, these workers sought permanency status. A collective complaint was earlier filed by 77 workers before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 12 December 2022 on the grounds that the Union failed to prove availability of sanctioned posts against which the workmen could be made permanent. The present Petition was filed by 22 of those workers in their individual capacity before the High Court challenging the Industrial Court’s dismissal.
On behalf of the Petitioners, it was submitted that since joining in 2003-2005, each worker had completed 240 working days in all calendar years, as recorded in work charts issued by the Range Forest Officer. They were paid salaries in the same manner as regular employees, initially in cash and subsequently credited to their bank accounts. Their work was identical to that of permanent employees of the Forest Department. Reliance was placed on the Government Resolution dated 16 October 2012 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, which provided for absorption of daily wage employees into permanent status upon completing 240 working days for five consecutive years. The Petitioners’ counsel further relied on precedents including The Deputy Conservator of Forest Nashik Van Vibhag (E), Nasik and Ors. Vs. Nasik Zilla Van Shramik Sangh, contending that the case was fully covered.
For the Respondents, it was argued that the Petitioners were daily wage labourers and not Van Majoor, with no appointment through sanctioned posts or selection process. Their tasks varied, including patrolling, fire extinguishing, assisting in guesthouses, guarding entry points, cleaning public spaces, and removing encroachments. It was contended that their appointment was not through formal recruitment, no qualifications were prescribed, and thus permanency could not be granted. Respondents pointed out that as per the Government Resolution, 125 supernumerary posts had already been created and filled for casual workers employed between 1994 and 2004, leaving no further vacancies for absorption. Accordingly, they submitted that the Industrial Court’s decision should be upheld.
The High Court carefully considered the rival submissions. It recorded that the Petitioners had continuously worked for more than five years, each completing 240 days per year, alongside permanent employees of the Department, performing duties of a perennial nature. Their services were unbroken, with clean records, and they undertook duties identical to permanent employees, including high-risk responsibilities. The Industrial Court’s reasoning that permanency could not be granted in the absence of sanctioned posts was found to be unacceptable.
Justice Jadhav observed: “Once they are continued in employment for years together without implementing various social security measures it would amount to depriving them the benefits, status and privilege of a permanent workman.” The Court recorded that the Petitioners’ services were indistinguishable from permanent workers and that they could not be discriminated against.
The judgment stated: “The rationale that there are no sanctioned permanent posts vacant or available for making them permanent and therefore their exploitation as casual workers should continue irrespective of the length of their tenure cannot be accepted at all.” The Court drew parallels with similar cases decided earlier, including Conservator of Forests and Anr. Vs. Savala Dhondiba Pise, where it was held that denial of permanency on technical grounds would amount to unfair labour practices.
The Court recorded: “From the above it is clear that once Petitioners have complied with the twin conditions of 240 days of work in each calendar year continuously for a period of 5 years and they are still being continued by the Forest Department for years together, they cannot be deprived of permanent status on the ground of unavailability of sanctioned post.” It further stated that acceptance of the Respondents’ contention would “amount to enslavement of these workmen and bonded labour.”
It was further observed that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint solely on the basis of non-availability of sanctioned posts. Justice Jadhav noted that the Petitioners’ case was fully supported by material evidence on record, including salary registers, attendance records, and letters issued by senior officers, which acknowledged the necessity of creating posts for such workers. The Court specifically referred to a letter of the Chief Conservator of Forests recommending creation of 12,991 posts of forest workers in Maharashtra, confirming their indispensability.
The judgment directed: “Respondents are directed to complete the computation and calculation of the outstanding differential wages due and payable to these Petitioners - workers who are granted benefit of permanency under this order within a time bound programme and in any event, within a period of 8 weeks from today and pay the same to the workers within a period of 2 weeks thereafter without fail and file compliance report to that effect after 10 weeks in this Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Vaishali Jagdale, Advocate for Petitioners
For the Respondents: Mr. J.P. Patil, AGP for Respondents – State
Case Title: Mr. Rahul Pittu Savalkar and Ors. vs. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:36926
Case Number: Writ Petition No.2683 of 2023
Bench: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
