Bombay High Court
Devanad S/O. Tukaram Barapatre vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 21 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.3086.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3086 /2016
Devanand s/o Tukaram Barapatre
Aged about 50 years, occu; NIL
R/o Balabhau peth, Behind Kamal Talkies
Near Vithoba Akahada
Nagpur 440 0017. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary
Industries, Energy and Labour Department
Mantralya, Mumbai.
2) The Manager,
Government Printing Press & Book Depot,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Ritu Kalia, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 21 July, 2016
st
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
wp.3086.16
the parties.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks protection of his
services, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, in the case
of Arun Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015 (1)
Mh.L.J. 457.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant mechanic on
06.03.1997, on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner
claimed to belong to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe, and the caste claim of the
petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The
Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner by the order dated
20.12.2006. The services of the petitioner were terminated on the invalidation
of his caste claim on 18.1.2007. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench,
the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction against the
respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner, on the post of Assistant Mechanic
and to protect his services.
Shri Saurabh Chaudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date, in the year
1997, and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that
the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the 'Halba'
wp.3086.16
Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated
only because the petitioner could not prove it on the basis of the documents
and the affinity test. It is stated that the caste claim was rejected only because
in some of the documents, 'Koshti' was recorded in the column of caste. It is
stated that since both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while
seeking the protection of services, have been satisfied in the case of the
petitioner, the services of the petitioner are required to be protected.
Miss Ritu Kalia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.1 does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Full
Bench, in the judgment, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. It is not disputed
that 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 the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. It is
however stated that the respondent no.2 has abolished the post of Assistant
Mechanic after the petitioner was terminated and if at all the petitioner is to
be reinstated, he could be reinstated on a post that carries an equivalent
pay-scale.
Shri Chaudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner is ready for his reinstatement on a post with an equivalent
pay-scale. It is stated that the petitioner has given up his caste claim and the
wp.3086.16
petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that he would not claim any
benefits meant for the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe, in future.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 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, inasmuch as 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 the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. The respondents
are ready to reinstate the petitioner on a post that carries an equivalent pay-
scale i.e. equivalent pay-scale of an Assistant Mechanic. Though the petitioner
would be entitled for reinstatement in service, the petitioner would not be
entitled to the arrears of salary and/or any benefits that may flow from the
order of continuity of service, for the period during which he was out of
service.
For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on a post with pay-
scale, that is equivalent to the pay-scale of an Assistant Mechanic, 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 claim the benefits meant for the 'Halba'
wp.3086.16
Scheduled Tribe, in future. The respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the
petitioner within two weeks from the date of furnishing of the undertaking. It
is needless to mention that though the petitioner would be entitled to
continuity of service, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of
salary or any other monetary benefits that would flow from the order of the
continuity in service, for the period during which he was out of service.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms,with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
wp.3086.16
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 26.07.2016.
