I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition ( S/ B) No.34 of 2026 February 12, 2026 Vikas Rawat & Others ---Petitioners Versus Union of India & Others ---Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Abhijay Negi and Mr. Ayush Pokhriyal, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent no.1 Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

1. Petitioners are Forest Range Officers, now promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests, under the Uttarakhand State Forest Services. They are seeking their inclusion in the State Forest Services as defined under Section 2(g) of The Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, so that they can be considered for promotion against 30 vacant posts of Deputy Conservator of Forests, a service 2. Section 2(g) defines “State Forest Service” to inter-alia mean: “(i) any such service in a State, being a service connected with forestry and the members thereof having gazetted status, as the Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government, approve for the purpose of these rules.”

3. It is not in dispute that the service being performed by the petitioners is connected with forestry and it is specifically asserted in paragraph-6 of the writ petition that vide a Gazette Notification dated 21.09.1995 the post of Forest Range Officer was categorized as “Gazetted Service”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 22.08.2025 in Civil Appeal of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.1253 of 2024 “P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors”, wherein in respect of the Officers of the State of Andhra Pradesh working in the Forest Department, the stand of the Central Government that approval of the Central Government can be inferred, has been noted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already made a representation for extending them the benefit of the services rendered by them under the State Government for purposes of their inclusion in the State Forest Service, as defined u/s 2(g) of Rules, 1966. He submits that the representation be directed to be decided 6. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India have no objection in case direction is issued to the State Government to decide the representation.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the State Government should consider the representation and take appropriate decision to sub-serve the ends of justice.

8. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition), by speaking order, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with copy of the representation.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 12.02.2026 Rajni Digitaly signed by RAJINI GUSAIN RAJINI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db4844 8ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d0 GUSAIN1 st 3 = 4 U 2 T , T p A o R st A a K lC H o A d N e D =2 , 63001, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4D F4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A1

58A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2026.02.13 10:24:48 +05'30'