1/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5582 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Smt. Priti Wd/o. Tulshiram Golait, Aged
about 40 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. C/o. Mohan
Mate, Ramnagar, Loya Layout, Kanhan/Pipri,
Tq. Parshioni, District Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- ig 1. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
No.3, Nagpur, Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through its Chief
Executive Officer.
3. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Ramtek, District, Nagpur.
4. Accountant General Office, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr. A. D. Dangore, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 24.02.2016 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:06 :::2/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of the services of the deceased husband of the petitioner in the respondent-Zilla Parishad till the date of his death on 20/07/2015 in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun v. State of Maharashtra).
3. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad on 13/03/1990, on a post that was reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The husband of the petitioner had claimed to belong to Mahar Scheduled Caste and his caste claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the husband of the petitioner on 23/07/2014 on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to verify the caste claim of the husband of the petitioner, as the petitioner's husband was a migrant from Madhya Pradesh. On the invalidation of the caste claim of the petitioner's husband, the respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad terminated the services of the husband of the petitioner by the order dated 20/07/2015. Unfortunately, on the same day, the petitioner's husband expired. The petitioner had sought the pensionary and other retiral benefits from the respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad, but the Zilla Parishad refused to grant them on the ground that the services of the petitioner's husband were terminated on 20/07/2015. Since the petitioner's ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:06 ::: 3/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment husband was appointed before the cut-off date 13/03/1990 and since there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner's husband had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for Mahar Scheduled Caste, according to the petitioner, the services of her husband are required to be protected.
4. Shri Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits by referring to the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner's husband only because the petitioner's husband was a migrant from Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner's husband had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Mahar Scheduled Caste.
It is submitted that the services of the husband of the petitioner are required to be protected in the circumstances of the case, more so, when he has expired on the same day on which he was terminated.
5. Shri Dharmadhikai, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri Dangore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, do not dispute the position of law, as laid down by the Full Bench. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 also do not dispute that the petitioner's husband was appointed in the year 1990, i.e. before the cut-off date and ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:06 ::: 4/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment that the caste claim of the petitioner's husband was invalidated only on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to verify the caste claim of the husband of the petitioner, as he was a migrant from Madhya Pradesh.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench and the order of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the services of the husband of the petitioner are required to be protected till the date of his death, in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the husband of the petitioner only because he was a migrant from Madhya Pradesh and the Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to verify his caste claim. The order of the Scrutiny Committee was passed only a few months before the death of the husband of the petitioner. Since the petitioner's husband is no more, it may not be possible for anybody to seek the verification of the caste claim of the husband of the petitioner, after his death from the competent Scrutiny Committee. In this background, since there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner's husband had fraudulently secured the caste certificate from the State of Maharashtra and since the petitioner's husband was appointed before the cut-off date, the services of the petitioner's husband are required to be protected, so that the petitioner would be entitled to the retiral ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:06 ::: 5/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment benefits including the pension that is payable in view of the services rendered by the petitioner's husband from the date of his appointment till the date of his death.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services of the husband of the petitioner till the date of his death on 20/07/2015. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to send the pension case in respect of the petitioner's husband to the respondent No.4 within a period of two months. The unpaid retiral benefits should be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:06 :::