Haryana's Forest Department has a serious imbalance at the top. The state has five Principal Chief Conservators of Forests (PCCFs) in position, but only two such posts are officially sanctioned. This means the department is running with more than double the number of senior officers than it is supposed to have.
The situation stands out because Haryana is one of the most forest-deficient states in the country. Only around 3.6% of the state's geographical area is under forest cover. Even when tree cover is added, the combined figure barely crosses 7% of the geographical area, according to official data.
Haryana Forest Department top-heavy structure explained
The imbalance in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) cadre is hard to ignore. Department sources say the IFS cadre sanctioned by the state in 2017 has a total strength of 58 officers. The sanctioned structure includes one PCCF (Head of Forest Force), one PCCF (Wildlife), five Additional PCCFs (APCCFs), six Chief Conservators of Forests (CCFs), and seven Conservators of Forests.
Yet, against the two sanctioned PCCF posts, five officers are currently holding the rank. This creates a top-heavy department where senior leadership outnumbers the sanctioned framework.
What this means for a forest-deficient state
The numbers raise a simple question: why does a state with such limited forest cover need so many top-ranking officers at the PCCF level? The sanctioned cadre was designed for a specific structure, but the actual positioning of officers does not match it.
Department sources point out that the sanctioned strength of 58 officers is the official limit. Having five PCCFs against two sanctioned posts suggests either a delay in promotions, adjustments in postings, or a structural issue that has not been corrected.
Our Take: A structural mismatch that needs fixing
To put it plainly, this is a management problem that Haryana needs to address. A state with just 3.6% forest cover does not need a bloated top layer of forest officers. The sanctioned posts exist for a reason — to keep the department lean and accountable.
Having five PCCFs against two sanctioned posts does not improve forest management. It creates confusion over roles, adds unnecessary expenditure, and sends the wrong signal about priorities. The focus should be on increasing forest cover and improving ground-level conservation, not on stacking senior officers in positions that were never meant to hold so many people.
The state must either adjust the sanctioned cadre to match its actual needs or ensure that postings align with the approved structure. Otherwise, the Forest Department will remain top-heavy while the forests it is meant to protect stay among the thinnest in the country.