Haribhau S/O Laxman Lonkar vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3636 Bom

                                                                                                               wp.3430.16
                                                                 1




                                                                                                                   
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.




                                                                                     
                                                                ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3430 /2016 Haribhau Laxman Lonkar

Aged about 55 years, Occupation : Nil,R/o Nimgaon, Tahsil Nandora, District Buldhana. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

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 Buldhana. .. ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. S.D.Khati, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Amit Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 ............................................................................................................................

                                                         CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                        MRS .   SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ . 
                                                         DATED :       7th July, 2016





    JUDGMENT: (PER MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, 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 seeks a direction to the

wp.3430.16

respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant protection of

his services, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of

Arun Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015(1)Mh.L.J. 457.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by respondent no.2

vide appointment order dated 09.08.1995. The petitioner was made

permanent in service vide an order dated 01.10.1996. Since the petitioner

claimed to belong to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe, his claim was referred to

the respondent no.1-Committee for adjudication. The Scrutiny Committee/

respondent no.1 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order

dated 23.04.1999 holding that the petitioner does not belong to 'Koli

Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe. Though the caste claim of the petitioner was

invalidated, he continued to be in service. The respondent no.2, however, vide

an order dated 26.02.2007, terminated the services of the petitioner with

effect from 15.03.2007. The petitioner has sought the reinstatement in service

and the protection of his services, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench.

4. Mr. S.D.Khati, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

argued that since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 before the

cut off date i.e.28.11.2000, the services of the petitioner on the post of Driver,

are required to be protected. He further submitted that there is no observation

in the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 23.04.1999 that the petitioner

has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled

Tribe. He states that since both the conditions that are required to be

wp.3430.16

satisfied while seeking the protection of service, stand satisfied in the case of

the petitioner, the services of the petitioner are required to be protected.

5. Mr. A.M. Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 does not dispute that there is no

observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had

fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Mahadeo Koli', Scheduled Tribe.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal

of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the judgment of the Scrutiny

Committee, it appears that the services of the petitioner are required to be

protected. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date

and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the

petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Mahadeo koli'

Scheduled Tribe. In view thereof, the services of the petitioner are required

to be protected, as per the law laid down by the Full Bench.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The

respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Driver

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

before the respondent no. 2 within a period of four weeks that neither the

petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for 'Koli Mahadeo'

Scheduled Tribe, in future. The respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the

petitioner on his original post of Driver within a period of one week from

the date of furnishing of the undertaking. Since the petitioner was out of

wp.3430.16

service from the date of his termination of his service till he would be

reinstated in services, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of

salary or any other monetary benefits flowing from his reinstatement, though

he would be entitled to the continuity of service.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to

costs.

                                                
    sahare
                            JUDGE ig                          JUDGE