1 wp3982.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3982 OF 2000
Vithal Bhaduji Shrirame,
aged about 56 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Sindewahi, Tah. Sindewahi,
District-Chandrapur ...... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
of Tribes Claims, through its Chairman,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Giripeth,
Nagpur.
2. Regional Manager, Forest Development
Corporation, Maharashtra, North
Chandrapur Region, Chandrapur.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Forest Department, Mantralayta,
Mumbai ...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for Petitioner.
Shri V.P.Maldhure, Advocate, for respondent No.2
Ms. Geeta Tiwari, AGP for Respondent no. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 12 th JUNE, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT (per Deshpande, J.)
1] The petitioner was initially appointed on the post
of Forest Guard in the year 1969 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Forester. He was further promoted ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:36 ::: 2 wp3982.00.odt to the post of Range Forest Officer on 28.06.1982 and it seems that from that post he was superannuated on 30.06.2000.
2] The claim of the petitioner was for Mana - Scheduled Tribe Category and it has been rejected by impugned order by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claim, Nagpur, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.
3] The order impugned does not record any reason. It does not take into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his caste claim for Mana - Scheduled Tribe category. No one appears for the petitioner. Shri Maldhure, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - Forest Development Corporation has invited our attention to the reply dated 21.01.2003 filed under the solemn affirmation of the then Regional Manager of Forest Development Corporation. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the reply filed by the Forest Development Corporation is reproduced below.
"5. The present Respondent further points out that as per the Government Resolution No. BCC/1094/Pr.No./68/94-16-B; Dtd. 15/6/1995, certain caste including the caste of the petitioner was included in the special backward category and it was resolved that the persons who had been ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:36 ::: 3 wp3982.00.odt appointed or promoted on the basis of the caste certificate should not be reverted or removed from the services.
6. The respondent submits that the petitioner stood retired from the service on 30.06.2000 on his attaining superannuation age and all the retirement and terminal benefits of the petitioner like gratuity, GSLIS and leave salary encashment which were due from this Respondent have been released by the office of the Respondent Corporation. Thus, in the prevailing circumstances, the petitioner is not in the service of the Respondent.
4] In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent Forest Development Corporation, the petitioner was entitled to protection in service on the post of Range Forest Officer as per the Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995. He has been paid all the retirement benefits including gratuity and leave salary encashment. In these circumstances, we need not to consider the validity of the order dated 23.03.2000 passed by the said Committee. However, since the order is unreasoned, we would like to clarify that the same shall not come in the way of the claim of any of the blood relatives of the petitioner and the Committee shall be at liberty to decide such cases on their own merits.
In view of above, the petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:36 :::