1906WP4267.13-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4267 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Jagpal S/o Ramaji Katarpawar, aged about
48 years, Occupation-Senior Overman, R/o
Sasti Dhoptala Township, Qtr. No.B-160,
Sasti, Tahsil Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Western Coalfields Ltd., through its General
Manager, Office of General Manager, Sasti,
Tahsil Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur.
2) Western Coalfields Ltd., through its Senior
Manager, (Mining), Disciplinary Authority,
Paoni Opencast Mine, Taluka Rajura, Dist.
Chandrapur.
3) The Caste Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled
Tribe, through its Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Giripeth, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 19.06.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination issued by the Western Coalfields Limited dated ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:12:57 ::: 1906WP4267.13-Judgment 2/3 01/08/2013. The petitioner has sought his continuation in service till his caste claim is decided.
The petitioner was appointed by the respondent-Western Coalfields Limited on a post meant for the scheduled tribes. Since the petitioner had claimed to belong to Chhatri scheduled tribe and his caste claim was pending for verification before the scrutiny committee, when this writ petition was filed against the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from service, this court had, by an interim order, directed the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. It was brought to the notice of this court during the pendency of the writ petition that the petitioner was not cooperating with the scrutiny committee and was not presenting himself before the scrutiny committee despite the service of notice on him. We had, by recording the aforesaid objection raised on behalf of the scrutiny committee, by our order dated 08/01/2015, directed the petitioner to appear before the scrutiny committee and had asked the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 8 months.
It appears that the scrutiny committee has not decided the caste claim of the petitioner, till date. If that is so, it would be necessary to dispose of this writ petition with a direction against the ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:12:57 ::: 1906WP4267.13-Judgment 3/3 scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a time frame. The respondent-scrutiny committee could be directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 9 months and the services of the petitioner could be protected for the said period.
In these circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction against the respondent No.3-scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 9 months and by protecting the services of the petitioner for a period of 9 months. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:12:57 :::