Bombay High Court
Manojkumar S/O. Bharatsingh ... vs The State Of Maha., Through ... on 16 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.217.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 217/2016
Manojkumar s/o Bharatsingh Baghel
Aged about 38 years, occu: service
R/o Armori, Tahsil Armori
Dist.Gadchiroli. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Department of Rural Development and Water
Conservation, Mantralaya, Mumbai -400 032.
2) Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
Through its Chief Executive officer,
Gadchiroli. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. N.A.Jachak, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Asst. Govt.Pleader for Respondent No.1
Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 16 June, 2016
th
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 the parties.
wp.217.16
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
Respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad to reinstate the petitioner in service as a Gramsevak,
in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457: Arun
Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others, and protect his services.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Gramsevak on 18.6.2001 by the
respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad, in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the
respondent no.2 some time in August, 2000. The petitioner was on probation for a
period of one year and by an order dated 23.7.2004 the services of the petitioner
were confirmed. Since the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the
Scheduled Tribes, the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of
the petitioner by the order dated 20.09.2005. The services of the petitioner were
terminated on 31.3.2006, due to invalidation of his caste claim. The petitioner had
filed Writ Petition No. 5071/2005 challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee,
but the said Writ Petition was dismissed. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench
(supra), the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent
No.2-Zilla Parishad that his services be protected after reinstatement.
4. Shri N.A. Jachak, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is entitled to protection of his services, in view of the law laid down by
the Full Bench, in the judgment reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. It is stated that
both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking protection stand
satisfied in the case of the petitioner inasmuch, as the petitioner was appointed
wp.217.16
before the cut off date on 18.6.2001 and there is no observation in the order of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant
for the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner
was not validated as he was not able to prove the same on the basis of the documents
and the affinity test. The learned counsel seeks reinstatement of the petitioner in
service and a further direction to the Zilla Parishad to protect his services.
5. Shri H.A.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-
Zilla Parishad has strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. It is
stated that after the petitioner was terminated, the petitioner secured gainful
employment as an Inspector in a private Bank and is presently working as such. It
is submitted that in the earlier Petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had
claimed for protection of his services and hence the second petition cannot be filed
for protection. It is then submitted that nine posts of Gram Sevaks are vacant in Zilla
Parishad, Gadchiroli, but there is a backlog for Scheduled Tribes. It is stated that all
the posts that are vacant, are located in scheduled areas and it would not be
possible for the petitioner to work there. It is stated that the petition suffers from
laches and is liable to be dismissed as such. It is stated, in the circumstances of the
case, the relief sought by the petitioner may not be granted.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the
services of the petitioner are required to be protected like all other employees
whose services are protected, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench. Both the
conditions that are required to be satisfied, in view of the judgment of the Full
wp.217.16
Bench for seeking protection, stand fulfilled 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 has
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Merely
because the petitioner is employed elsewhere the protection of his services cannot
be denied, since this case stands covered by the judgment of the Full Bench.
Admittedly, nine posts of Gramsevaks are vacant in Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and
the petitioner is ready to join in one of the vacant posts, even in the scheduled areas.
Merely because there is some backlog for the reserved categories, it cannot be said
that the petitioner cannot be reinstated on the post of Gramsevak and his services
cannot be protected. It would be necessary for this Court to follow the judgment of
the Full Bench and protect the services of the petitioner, in the facts of the case.
We find that the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Scrutiny
Committee as the petitioner was not able to prove the same on the basis of the
documents and affinity test. There are no adverse observations against the
petitioner, whatsoever in the order of the Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the protection
to the services of the petitioner cannot be denied when all other similarly situated
employees are reinstated in service by granting the benefit of the Full Bench decision.
It cannot be said that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. After the
Full Bench judgment was rendered, the employees who had worked for a
considerable long period and whose services were terminated, approached this Court
seeking protection of their services and consistently, during the recent past, this
Court has protected the services of the employees. It also cannot be said that the
petitioner had sought the protection of his services in Writ Petition No.5071/2005
wp.217.16
and hence this petition is not maintainable. We have read the prayer clause in Writ
Petition No.5071/2005. The only prayer made by the petitioner in the said petition
was for setting aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee and reinstating the
petitioner in service. A mere reference to the word 'protection' in paragraph 18 of
the Writ Petition No.5071/2005 is unduly relied on by the learned counsel for the
Zilla Parishad to claim that the petitioner had sought for the protection of his
services in the earlier Writ Petition and the said Writ Petition is dismissed. We do not
find any prayer for protection in the earlier Writ Petition. None of the submissions
made on behalf of the respondents are capable of denying the relief sought by the
petitioner.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent-Zilla
Parishad is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, on the condition that the
petitioner furnishes an undertaking that neither the petitioner nor his progeny
would claim the benefits meant for the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe, in future. The
respondent-Zilla Parishad is directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date on which the undertaking is submitted. It is needless to mention
that though the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service, the petitioner
would not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits for the period during which
he was out of service. This would mean that the petitioner would not be entitled to
back wages and/or any other monetary benefits including increments etc.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
