Bombay High Court
Nanda Chandrakant Basapure vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
wp7600.13.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7600 OF 2013
Nanda Chandrakant Basapure
age 39 years, occ. Service
r/o at post Alkuti, Tq. Parner
Dist. Ahmednagar .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Department of Transport
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2
The Divisional Controller
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Nanded Division Nanded
3 The Managing Director
Central Office,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Mumbai 08. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.S. Bayas, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the State.
Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent n o. 2.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner is praying for quashment of the order of issued by the
Divisional Controller, Nanded on 12.05.2007 and seeks direction for his
reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and continuity of
service, in view of the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2015.
wp7600.13.doc
3. The petitioner was appointed as clerk in MSRTC, Parner Depot, after
observing the procedure prescribed for the appointment, as against the
vacancy prescribed for Scheduled Tribe community. After his appointment,
the caste certificate issued to him was forwarded for verification to the
Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee found that the petitioner
has failed to substantiate his tribe claim and directed invalidation of the
caste certificate by order dated 06.05.2006. As a consequence of
invalidation of the caste certificate, the services of the petitioner have been
terminated by the appointing authority by order dated 12.05.2007. The
petitioner is making prayer in view of judgment of Full Bench of this Court
in case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2015(1) Bom.C.R. 568 and, in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind
reported in 2001(1) Bom.C.R. 620 (SC).
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation, on
instructions states that, there is vacancy available for accommodating the
petitioner in employment.
5. In identical circumstances, Division Bench of this court while dealing
with Writ Petition no. 7434/2011 on 26.6.2015 and Review Petition St. No.
18601/2007 in Writ Petition No. 3445/2006 on 3.7.2015, directed
reinstatement of the employee without backwages, however, entitling him to
claim benefit of continuity in employment for the purpose of claiming retiral
benefits.
wp7600.13.doc
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the employee /
petitioner is out of employment from 2007 and has not rendered service
since then, it would not be proper to burden the employer with liability to
pay backwages to the petitioner from the date of termination till the date of
reinstatement. In view of the decisions recorded in the matters referred to
above, we hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement in
employment. However, he shall not be entitled to claim backwages or any
other monetary benefits from the date of termination till the date of his
reinstatement. It is observed that since the petitioner is not guilty of
commission of fraud, nor has relied upon any fabricated record for
substantiating h is tribe claim, he is entitled to be taken back in
employment.
7. Respondent shall reinstate the petitioner on the post of Conductor as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from
today. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim promotional benefits or
any other benefits on the strength of his belonging to Mannerwalu
Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner shall undertake to file undertaking
in that regard within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner
shall not be entitled to claim backwages, however, shall be grnated
continuity in service for claiming retiral benefits.
8. The order issued by the respondent, terminating petitioner from
service is quashed and set aside.
wp7600.13.doc
9. Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
( K. L. WADANE ) ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
