Bombay High Court
Sushila D/O. Daulat Wadgaonkar vs State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary ... on 4 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3067/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3067/2016
Sushila d/o Daulat Wadgaonkar,
(Now Sushila W/o Rajaram Sonkusare),
Aged about : Adult, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Golibar Chowk, Kharbikar Mohalla,
Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
General Administrative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Chandrapur,
Tahsil : Chandrapur, District : Chandrapur. RESPONDENTS
Ms D.R. Muley holding holding for Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 4 TH AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
respondent no.2, dated 12.06.2003, terminating the services of the
petitioner. The petitioner has sought her reinstatement in service in view
of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457
(Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State of Maharashtra & Others).
WP 3067/16 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist
in the Tahsil Office at Rajura, on 20.03.1999, on a post earmarked for
the Scheduled Tribes. The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated
by the Scrutiny Committee, on 15.07.2002. The petitioner's services
were terminated after her caste claim was invalidated by the order
dated 12.06.2003. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the
Scrutiny Committee and has only sought the protection of her services in
view of the judgment of the Full Bench.
4. Ms Mulay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that
both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the
protection of service, stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner,
inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date in the
year 1999 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently claimed the benefits
meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of
the petitioner was invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same
on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
5. Shri Ghurde, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, does not dispute the position of
law as laid down by the Full Bench. It is not disputed that the petitioner
was appointed before the cut-off date and there is no observation in the
WP 3067/16 3 Judgment
order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently
sought the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that
after the petitioner's services were terminated, the post of Junior Clerk-
cum-Typist is not filled. It is further stated that if this Court is inclined to
reinstate the petitioner in service, the petitioner would not be entitled to
the arrears of salary for the period during which the petitioner was out of
service and would also not be entitled to the other monetary benefits that
would flow from the order of continuity of service. It is stated that an
appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, we find that both the
conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of
services stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was
appointed before the cut-off date and there is no adverse observation in
the order of the Scrutiny Committee except the observation that the caste
claim of the petitioner is invalidated. We find that the caste claim of the
petitioner was invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same on
the basis of the documents and the affinity test. Though the petitioner
would be entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service, as rightly
submitted on behalf of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the
petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary for the period
during which the petitioner was out of service and also for the other
monetary benefits that would flow from the order of continuity of service.
WP 3067/16 4 Judgment
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on
the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court
and before the respondent no.2 within four weeks that the petitioner
would not claim the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe, in
future. Though the petitioner is entitled to the reinstatement and
continuity of service, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of
salary for the period during which the petitioner was out of service and
also for the other monetary benefits that would flow from the order of
continuity of service. The respondent no.2 should reinstate the petitioner
within two weeks from the date of tendering of the undertaking before
the respondent no.2 and in this Court.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 3067/16 5 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 09.08.2016.
