Bombay High Court
Kamalkishor S/O Sitaram Gupta vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 24 February, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 1761/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1761/2015
Kamalkishor s/o Sitaram Gupta,
Aged about 64 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Rama Bhavan, Sabnis Plot, Amravati,
Tah. And Distt. Amravati. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary
Education Youth Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Director of education,
Central Building, Pune.
3. Dy. Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
4. Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad (Secondary), Amravati.
5. Nutan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal,
Jog Chowk, Amravati,
Through its Secretary.
6. The Head Master,
New High School Main,
Amravati, Tah and Distt. Amravati. RESPONDENTS
Shri P.J. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ambarish Joshi Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 4.
Shri Maheshwari holding for Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent
nos.5 and 6.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 24 , 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
WP 1761/15 2 Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his
services on the invalidation of his caste claim 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).
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Training Instructor
in a clear and permanent vacancy on 16.12.1982. Since, as per the
management, the post on which the petitioner was appointed was
earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes, the management sent the caste
certificate of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee, for verification.
However, by the order dated 07.11.2001, the claim of the petitioner of
belonging to Bhunjia Tribe was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee.
On 07.11.2001, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The
petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in December-2008. In
this background, the petitioner has filed the instant petition by taking the
benefit of the judgment reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun
Vishwanath Sonone Versus State of Maharashtra & Others) to seek the
protection of his services till he attained the age of superannuation in
December-2008, as the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982, i.e.
before the cut-off date, and as there is no observation in the order of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for the Bhunjia Scheduled Tribe.
WP 1761/15 3 Judgment
4. Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982, before the cut-off date
and as there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that
the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits that are meant for the
Bhunjia Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner is entitled for the protection of
services. It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated as
the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents
and the affinity test. It is stated that since the conditions that are
required to be satisfied while securing the benefit of protection of 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),
stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner
need to be protected.
5. Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Maheshwari, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.5 and 6, do not dispute the position of law as laid down
by the Full Bench. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed in the
year 1982 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant
for the Bhunjia Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that an appropriate order
may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
WP 1761/15 4 Judgment
6. On a reading of the judgment of the Full Bench and on
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the services of
the petitioner needs to be protected till he attained the age of
superannuation. The petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date and
we find that there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits
meant for the Bhunjia Scheduled Tribe. We find that the caste claim of
the petitioner is rejected only because the petitioner could not prove the
same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test. Since the
conditions that are required to be satisfied while granting the benefit of
protection of services stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, a
direction to the respondents to protect the services of the petition till he
attained the age of superannuation, is necessary.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent nos.5 and 6 are directed to protect the services of the
petitioner till December-2008, i.e. when the petitioner has attained the
age of superannuation, on the petitioner furnishing an undertaking in this
Court and to the respondent nos.5 and 6 that neither the petitioner nor
his progeny would secure the benefits meant for the Bhunjia Scheduled
Tribe, in future. Though the petitioner would be entitled to the
continuity of service till December-2008, the petitioner would not be
WP 1761/15 5 Judgment
entitled to the arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits for the
period from 07.11.2001 to December-2008. The respondent nos.5 and 6
are directed to prepare the pension case of the petitioner and submit the
same to the concerned respondents within a period of two months. The
petitioner should cooperate with the respondent nos.5 and 6 in preparing
the pension case. It is needless to mention that the petitioner would be
entitled to pension only from February-2015 as the petitioner has filed the
instant petition for protection, on 29.01.2015. The arrears of pensionary
benefits should be paid to the petitioner within a period of five months
from today and the regular pension should also be paid to the petitioner
within the same period.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
