Ghanshyam S/O. Deochand Thorat vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1838 Bom

                                               1



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                   
                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                          
    Writ Petition No. 2218 of 2016




                                                         
    Petitioner               :      Ghanshyam Deochand Thorat, aged about

                                    57 years, Occ: Nil, resident of Apa-tapa,




                                             
                                    Apoti (Khurd), Tahsil and Dist. Akola
                                  igversus

    Respondents              :       1)  Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, through its Member-Secretary,

Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur

2) The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra

State Road Transport Corporation, Akola

Shri S. D. Khati, Avocate for petitioner

Shri A. K. Bangadkar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 1

Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondent no. 2

Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And

V. M. Deshpande, JJ

Dated : 26th April 2016

Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service and protect his

services in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Arun

v. State of Maharashtra and ors reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457.

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by the respondent no.

2-Corporation on 9.10.1995. The petitioner claimed to belong to Koli

Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred

to the respondent no. 2-Scrutiny Committee for verification. Though the

Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by order

dated 4.10.1999, the respondent-Corporation continued the petitioner in

service till his services were terminated on 16.2.2012. In view of the

judgment of the Full Bench, the petitioner has sought the protection of his

services.

3. Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

both the conditions that are required to be satisfied for seeking protection of

the services, stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the

petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date and there is no observation

in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently

obtained the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. It is

stated that the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated as the petitioner

could not produce the documents in support of his claim. It is submitted that

a direction to the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service

would be necessary.

4. Shri A. K. Bangadkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1-Committee and Shri V. G.

Wankhede, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-

Corporation do not dispute the position of law, as laid down by the Full

Bench judgment. It is, however, stated on behalf of the Corporation that the

petitioner would not be entitled to protection of his services as the petitioner

had failed to appear before the Committee and produce the requisite

documents. It is further stated that if this Court is inclined to protect the

services of the petitioner by directing his reinstatement, the petitioner should

not be entitled for the arrears of salary and the other monetory benefits that

may flow from the order of reinstatement and continuity in service.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of

the judgment of the Full Bench and the order of the Scrutiny Committee, it

appears that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. The

petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date in the year 1995 and there is

no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had

fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled

Tribe. It appears on a reading of the order of the Scrutiny Committee that

the petitioner was not able to prove his caste claim as he was unable to

produce the documents in support of the same. Since there is no finding of

fraud recorded by the Scrutiny Committee against the petitioner, the services

of the petitioner are required to be protected.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

The respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service

on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court

and to the respondent no. 2-Corporation within one month that neither the

petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for the Koli

Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe, in future. The petitioner shall be reinstated

within a period of two weeks from the receipt of undertaking. Though the

petitioner would be entitled to continuity in service on his reinstatement, he

would not be entitled for arrears of salary or any other monetory benefits for

the period during which he was out of employment.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

            V. M. DESHPANDE, J                         SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J




                                             
    joshi