Bombay High Court
Arjun Jugrajsingh Gautam vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp 108.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.108 OF 2016
Arjun Jugrajsingh Gautam
Age: 40 years, occu: nil
R/o At post Madaj, Tq. Omarga,
Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary,
Tribal Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2 The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra Transport Corporation
Osmanabad Division,
Osmanabad
3 The Depot Manager
Omarga, Dist. Osmanabad Respondents
Mr.A.U. Chandel advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.S. Dande, AGP for for Respondent No.1
Mr. D.S. Bagul advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
_______________
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
K.L.WADANE, JJ
(Date : 13th June, 2016.)
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Heard.
{2}
wp 108.16.odt
2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final decision at admission stage.
3 The petitioner is praying for quashment of the order of
termination issued by the Divisional Controller, Osmanabad on
17.1.2004 and seeks direction for his reinstatement in service
with consequential benefits and continuity of service, in view of
the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2015.
The petitioner was appointed as a conductor, after observing
the procedure, prescribed for the appointment, as against a
vacancy prescribed for scheduled tribe (ST) category. The
petitioner belongs to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe community. After his
appointment, the caste certificate issued to him was forwarded for
verification to the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny
Committee found that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his
tribe claim and directed invalidation of the caste certificate by
order dated 20.3.2003. As a consequence of invalidation of the
caste certificate, the services of the petitioner have been
terminated by the appointing authority by order dated 17.1.2004.
The petitioner is making prayer in view of Judgment of full bench
of this Court in case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone V/s State
of Maharashtra (2015 (1) Bom.C.R. 568) and in case of State of
{3}
wp 108.16.odt
Maharashtra V/s Milind (2001 (1) Bom.C.R. 620 (SC).
5 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation,
on instructions states that, there is vacancy available for
accommodating the petitioner in employment.
6 In identical circumstances, Division Bench of this Court
while dealing with Writ Petition No.7434 of 2011 on 26.6.2015
and Review Petition St.No.18601 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.3445
of 2006 on 3.7.2015, directed reinstatement of the employee
without back wages, however, entitling him to claim benefit of
continuity in employment for the purpose of claiming retiral
benefits.
7 In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the
employee / petitioner is out of employment from 2004 and has
not rendered service since then, it would not be proper to burden
the employer with liability to pay back wages to the petitioner
from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. In view
of the decisions recorded in the matters referred to above, we
hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement in
employment. However, he shall not be entitled to claim back
wages or any other monetary befits from the date of termination
till the date of his reinstatement. It is observed that since the
{4}
wp 108.16.odt
petitioner is not guilty of commission of fraud, nor has relied upon
any fabricated record for substantiating his tribe claim, he is
entitled to be taken back in employment.
8 Respondent shall reinstate the petitioner on the post of
Conductor as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall not be
entitled to claim promotional benefits or any other benefits on the
strength of his belonging to Thakur ST community. The petitioner
shall undertake to file undertaking in that regard within a period
of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall not be entitled to
claim back wages, however, shall be granted continuity in service
for claiming retiral benefits.
9 The order issued by the respondent, terminating petitioner
from service is quashed and set aside.
10 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.
11 There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.L.WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
vbd
