{"id":238857,"date":"2009-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-06-07T23:21:42","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T17:51:42","slug":"the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Forest Officer &#8230; vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Divisional Forest Officer &#8230; vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                             CWP No. 16123 of 2008\n\n                                             Date of decision: 03.03.2009\n\n\nThe Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani\n\n\n                                                       .....PETITIONER\n\n                   VERSUS\n\n\n\nThe Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and\nanother\n\n\n                                                       ..... RESPONDENTS\n\n\nCORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH\n\n\n\nPresent:     Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana,\n             for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate,\n             for respondent No. 2.\n\n                   ***\n\n\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n<p>             In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated<\/p>\n<p>10.07.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court, Rohtak, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the<\/p>\n<p>workman holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with<\/p>\n<p>continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice<\/p>\n<p>i.e. 03.11.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 16123 of 2008                              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>by the Labour Court, with regard to the violation of the provisions of Section<\/p>\n<p>25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be sustained for the simple<\/p>\n<p>reason that the Labour Court has failed to give a finding with regard to the<\/p>\n<p>fact that Pat Ram and Chotte, who are junior to the workman, belong to<\/p>\n<p>the same category of the employee, to which the workman belongs. He<\/p>\n<p>further contends that merely because some junior people were retained by<\/p>\n<p>the Management does not show that provisions of Section 25-G of the<\/p>\n<p>Industrial Disputes Act, have been violated.\n<\/p>\n<p>             On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-workman<\/p>\n<p>states that this was not a stand of the Management before the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court nor was this an assertion at the time of arguments before the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court. Since this ground was not raised, at this stage it cannot be allowed<\/p>\n<p>to be contended. Has this stand been taken before the appropriate Forum.<\/p>\n<p>The Labour Court would have accordingly proceeded to decide the<\/p>\n<p>reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>             The contention, as raised by respondent No. 2-workman, has<\/p>\n<p>force   and deserves to be accepted.       Perusal of the award does not<\/p>\n<p>indicate that such a stand was ever taken by the petitioner-Management<\/p>\n<p>before the Labour Court.       The finding, which has been recorded, is<\/p>\n<p>categorically clear that Pat Ram and Chotte, who were junior to the<\/p>\n<p>workman, were retained by the petitioner. That being so, provisions of<\/p>\n<p>Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, stood violated by the<\/p>\n<p>Management while terminating the services of the workman. In view of this<\/p>\n<p>fact, no illegallity can be said to have been found in the findings recorded<\/p>\n<p>by the Labour Court with regard to violation of provisions of Section 25-G of<\/p>\n<p>the Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner contends<\/p>\n<p>that since it is a public post and even if he has completed 240 days in one<\/p>\n<p>calendar year from the date preceding his date of termination, the said<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 16123 of 2008                              -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>workman is not entitled to be reinstated against a public post when the<\/p>\n<p>engagement of the workman was not in accordance with the Recruitment<\/p>\n<p>Rules and further after giving an opportunity to all eligible candidates. This<\/p>\n<p>would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n<p>and the appointment being not in consonance with the provisions of<\/p>\n<p>Constitution, the award is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed on<\/p>\n<p>the decisions of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the cases reported as<\/p>\n<p>Ghazibad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and<\/p>\n<p>another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, <a href=\"\/doc\/932266\/\">Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat,<\/p>\n<p>Gajraula,<\/a> (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan, (2007)<\/p>\n<p>9 SCC 748 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1053942\/\">State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma,<\/a> (2007)<\/p>\n<p>1 SCC 575 to contend that the posts under the State are required to be<\/p>\n<p>filled up in terms of the statutory Rules governing the service by inviting<\/p>\n<p>applications from all eligible candidates and thereafter, on consideration of<\/p>\n<p>the same, the appointment can be said to be a valid appointment. It has<\/p>\n<p>been contended that the respondent-workman was engaged on a<\/p>\n<p>temporary post without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and<\/p>\n<p>16 of the Constitution, therefore, even if the workman has completed 240<\/p>\n<p>days of service, the said workman was not entitled to be reinstated and<\/p>\n<p>also for the grant of back wages. He further submits that even if persons<\/p>\n<p>junior to him have been retained, the retention of such juniors will not<\/p>\n<p>confer any right in favour of the workman to be reinstated. For making this<\/p>\n<p>submission, reliance has been placed by a judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble<\/p>\n<p>Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai and<\/p>\n<p>another, (2006) 11 SCC 684.\n<\/p>\n<p>            I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone<\/p>\n<p>through the records of the case as well as the impugned award dated<\/p>\n<p>10.07.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 16123 of 2008                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. I am of the opinion that the workman<\/p>\n<p>was engaged against a public post. Such engagement was not in terms of<\/p>\n<p>the statutory Recruitment Rules applicable to the post which would have<\/p>\n<p>required giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and to be<\/p>\n<p>considered for appointment. Therefore, the workman cannot be ordered<\/p>\n<p>to be reinstated. Still further, the retention of juniors will not confer any<\/p>\n<p>right on the workman to be reinstated as illegality in continuing to engage a<\/p>\n<p>daily wager will only mean perpetuating an illegality.            In Jaipur<\/p>\n<p>Development Authority&#8217;s case (supra), the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has<\/p>\n<p>held that even in case of breach of the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H<\/p>\n<p>of the Act, the workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated.<\/p>\n<p>              In view of the above, the award granting reinstatement and<\/p>\n<p>50% back wages to the workman-respondent No. 2 is not sustainable.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, the impugned award dated 10.07.2006 (Annexure P-5), is<\/p>\n<p>set aside.    As the workman has worked for a period of more than seven<\/p>\n<p>years, I deem it appropriate to grant compensation amounting to Rs.<\/p>\n<p>70,000\/- to settle equities between the parties in the light of the judgment<\/p>\n<p>passed by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1461184\/\">Telecom District Manager and<\/p>\n<p>others vs. Keshab Deb,<\/a> 2008 (4) SCT 33.\n<\/p>\n<p>              This writ petition is allowed in above terms. The petitioner is<\/p>\n<p>directed to pay compensation of Rs. 70,000\/- to the respondent No. 2-<\/p>\n<p>workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n<p>this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>              Counsel for respondent No. 2-workman states that the<\/p>\n<p>workman stands reinstated in service but in the light of the order passed by<\/p>\n<p>this Court, his claim would no more survive. In any case, he contends that<\/p>\n<p>he would move a representation to the petitioner, who may consider the<\/p>\n<p>same sympathetically and pass an appropriate order.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 16123 of 2008                       -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            A direction is issued to the petitioner that in case, a<\/p>\n<p>representation is made by the workman-respondent No. 2, the same may<\/p>\n<p>be considered sympathetically.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )<br \/>\n                                           JUDGE<br \/>\nMarch 03, 2009<br \/>\npj\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court The Divisional Forest Officer &#8230; vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16123 of 2008 Date of decision: 03.03.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani &#8230;..PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another &#8230;.. RESPONDENTS CORAM: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-238857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Divisional Forest Officer ... vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Forest Officer ... vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-07T17:51:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Forest Officer &#8230; vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T17:51:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1080,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Forest Officer ... vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T17:51:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Forest Officer &#8230; vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Divisional Forest Officer ... vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Forest Officer ... vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-07T17:51:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Forest Officer &#8230; vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T17:51:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009"},"wordCount":1080,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009","name":"The Divisional Forest Officer ... vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T17:51:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-forest-officer-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Forest Officer &#8230; vs The Presiding Officer on 3 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238857","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=238857"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238857\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}