Bombay High Court
Smt. Priti Wd/O. Tulshiram Golait vs The Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 24 February, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5582 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Smt. Priti Wd/o. Tulshiram Golait, Aged
about 40 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. C/o. Mohan
Mate, Ramnagar, Loya Layout, Kanhan/Pipri,
Tq. Parshioni, District Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- ig 1. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
No.3, Nagpur, Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through its Chief
Executive Officer.
3. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Ramtek, District, Nagpur.
4. Accountant General Office, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr. A. D. Dangore, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 24.02.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (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.
2/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of the
services of the deceased husband of the petitioner in the respondent-Zilla
Parishad till the date of his death on 20/07/2015 in view of the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun v. State
of Maharashtra).
3. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in the respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad on 13/03/1990,
on a post that was reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The husband of
the petitioner had claimed to belong to Mahar Scheduled Caste and his
caste claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The
Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the husband of
the petitioner on 23/07/2014 on the ground that the Scrutiny
Committee did not have jurisdiction to verify the caste claim of the
husband of the petitioner, as the petitioner's husband was a migrant
from Madhya Pradesh. On the invalidation of the caste claim of the
petitioner's husband, the respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad terminated the
services of the husband of the petitioner by the order dated
20/07/2015. Unfortunately, on the same day, the petitioner's husband
expired. The petitioner had sought the pensionary and other retiral
benefits from the respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad, but the Zilla Parishad
refused to grant them on the ground that the services of the petitioner's
husband were terminated on 20/07/2015. Since the petitioner's
3/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment
husband was appointed before the cut-off date 13/03/1990 and since
there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner's husband had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for
Mahar Scheduled Caste, according to the petitioner, the services of her
husband are required to be protected.
4. Shri Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits by referring to the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste certificate of the
petitioner's husband only because the petitioner's husband was a
migrant from Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that there is no observation
in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner's husband had
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Mahar Scheduled Caste.
It is submitted that the services of the husband of the petitioner are
required to be protected in the circumstances of the case, more so,
when he has expired on the same day on which he was terminated.
5. Shri Dharmadhikai, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri Dangore,
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3,
do not dispute the position of law, as laid down by the Full Bench. The
respondent Nos.2 and 3 also do not dispute that the petitioner's
husband was appointed in the year 1990, i.e. before the cut-off date and
4/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment
that the caste claim of the petitioner's husband was invalidated only on
the ground that the Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to
verify the caste claim of the husband of the petitioner, as he was a
migrant from Madhya Pradesh.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench and the order of the Scrutiny
Committee, it appears that the services of the husband of the petitioner
are required to be protected till the date of his death, in the peculiar
circumstances of the case. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the
caste claim of the husband of the petitioner only because he was a
migrant from Madhya Pradesh and the Scrutiny Committee did not
have jurisdiction to verify his caste claim. The order of the Scrutiny
Committee was passed only a few months before the death of the
husband of the petitioner. Since the petitioner's husband is no more, it
may not be possible for anybody to seek the verification of the caste
claim of the husband of the petitioner, after his death from the
competent Scrutiny Committee. In this background, since there is no
observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner's
husband had fraudulently secured the caste certificate from the State of
Maharashtra and since the petitioner's husband was appointed before
the cut-off date, the services of the petitioner's husband are required to
be protected, so that the petitioner would be entitled to the retiral
5/5 2402WP5582.15-Judgment
benefits including the pension that is payable in view of the services
rendered by the petitioner's husband from the date of his appointment
till the date of his death.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services of the
husband of the petitioner till the date of his death on 20/07/2015. The
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to send the pension case in respect
of the petitioner's husband to the respondent No.4 within a period of
two months. The unpaid retiral benefits should be paid to the petitioner
within a period of four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
