wp2159.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2159/2005
PETITIONERS: Shri Pramod Vishnupant Parate
(Dead) through L.Rs.
1) Smt. Prafullata wd/o Pramod Parate,
Aged about 52 years, Occ. : Service.
2) Pranoti d/o Pramod Parate,
ig aged about 24 years, Occ. : Service.
3) Pranav s/o Pramod Parate,
Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student.
All r/o Plot No.C-53, Suyog Aditya
Residency, Bibeywad, Pune - 411 037.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Deptt., Mantralaya - 32.
2. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims, Amravati Division, Amravati,
through its Deputy Director (R) and
Member-Secretary, having its office at
Amravati, District Amravati.
3. Bank of Maharashtra, through its
General Manager, (IR&P) having its office
at Lok Mangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Gopal Mishra, Advocate for petitioner
Shri I.J. Damle, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 03.10.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:39:17 ::: wp2159.05.odt 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the original petitioner had challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 1.8.2003 invalidating the claim of the original petitioner of belonging to Halbi Scheduled Tribe.
The original petitioner Shri Pramod Vishnupant Parate had joined the services of the respondent no.3 on the post of clerk on 14.3.1984, that was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The caste claim of the original petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the original petitioner of belonging to Halbi Scheduled Tribe by the order dated 1.8.2003. The original petitioner had impugned the said order in this writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, the original petitioner has expired and his legal representatives, that is, his widow, his major son and his major daughter are brought on record.
Shri Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside as the original petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity of hearing. It is stated that though the original petitioner was asked to furnish his explanation in pursuance of the vigilance report, on 13.1.2003 and the original petitioner has submitted the explanation on the said date, the notice of further hearing, that was scheduled on 14.7.2003, was not ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:39:17 ::: wp2159.05.odt 3 received by the original petitioner till that date. It is stated that the original petitioner received the notice of the Scrutiny Committee asking him to remain present before the Scrutiny committee on 14.7.2003, on the next day, i.e., 15.7.2003 and hence, the original petitioner could not attend the hearing on that day. It is submitted that since the Scrutiny Committee has fixed the matter for hearing of the petitioner on 14.7.2003 and the petitioner could not be heard in view of the aforesaid factual position, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is stated that the Scrutiny Committee also committed an error in lightly brushing aside several old documents of the years 1919, 1940, 1945 and 1951, which showed that the caste of the blood relatives of the original petitioner was recorded as 'Halbi', by referring to a comparatively new document in respect of the original petitioner himself, that showed that the caste of the original petitioner was recorded as 'Halba Koshti' in 1968.
It is stated that normally the Scrutiny Committee rejects the caste claim of the claimants on the ground that the old documents do not show that they belong to a particular caste or tribe and in this case, the Scrutiny Committee has acted otherwise and has discarded the old documents of the years 1919, 1940 and 1945 on the basis of a comparatively recent document pertaining to the original petitioner of the year 1968, though the petitioner has satisfactorily explained about the entry in the recent ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:39:17 ::: wp2159.05.odt 4 document of the year 1968.
Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 has supported the order of the Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier heard by the Committee on 13.1.2003 and therefore, no further hearing was required. It is, however, fairly admitted on the basis of the impugned order that the original petitioner was called for further hearing on 14.7.2003. It is stated that one of the recent documents, that is, caste validity certificate issued in favour of the sister of the petitioner shows that her claim of belonging to Halba Koshti was validated. It is stated that since the original petitioner's own caste was recorded as 'Halba Koshti', the Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected his caste claim, more so, when the original petitioner has failed to prove his affinity towards Halbi Scheduled Tribe.
On a perusal of the writ petition and the order of the Scrutiny Committee we find that though the original petitioner was called for hearing on 14.7.2003, the original petitioner did not receive the notice for hearing till 15.7.2003 and he was not heard on 14.7.2003 before the Scrutiny Committee decided the caste claim of the original petitioner, by the impugned order dated 1.8.2003. In the circumstances of the case, we would have normally remanded the matter pertaining to the caste claim ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:39:17 ::: wp2159.05.odt 5 of the original petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision, specially when the original petitioner could not be heard on 14.7.2003, when he was lastly called for hearing. However, since the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the writ petition, it would not be possible to remand the matter pertaining to the caste claim of the original petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the same on merits after hearing the original petitioner.
We also find that the Scrutiny Committee has very lightly brushed aside the extremely old documents of the pre-independence era, of the years 1919, 1940 and 1945, by referring to a comparatively new document of the year 1968. It is rightly stated on behalf of the petitioner that normally the Scrutiny Committee rejects a caste claim on the ground that the old documents do not substantiate that the claimant belongs to a particular caste and in this case, the Scrutiny Committee has brushed aside the old documents by referring to a comparatively new document of the year 1968.
Normally, when the principles of natural justice are not followed and a person is not granted an opportunity of hearing, the matter is remanded to the authority concerned with a direction to hear the person. However, since the petitioner has expired and the widow of the petitioner has received the retiral benefits, that were payable to the ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:39:17 ::: wp2159.05.odt 6 original petitioner and she is also receiving family pension, it would not be proper to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste claim of the original petitioner, who is no more. If the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are desirous of getting their caste certificates verified, they are entitled to do so by applying to the Scrutiny Committee.
It would not be proper to remand the matter of the original petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee, as the original petitioner has expired, but the petitioner nos.2 and 3 or the petitioner no.2's progeny would be entitled to seek the verification of their caste claim. The impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in the case of the original petitioner should not be considered by the Scrutiny Committee while verifying the caste claims of the members of the family of the original petitioner, as his caste claim was invalidated without hearing him.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. It is needless to mention that the respondent no.3 would not be entitled to take any adverse action against the petitioner nos.1 to 3 so far as the grant of family pension is concerned.
Rule accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:39:17 :::
wp2159.05.odt
7
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 06/10/2016 ig ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:39:17 :::