Bombay High Court
Vaishali W/O. Samir Dafade vs The Principal Secretary, Law And ... on 1 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3325.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3325/2015
PETITIONER : Vaishali w/o Samir Dafade
Aged about 39 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o c/o D.G. Mahajan, Plot No.88,
Gaurav Apartment, Ambazari Layout,
Nagpur - 440033.
ig ...Versus...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary
Department, Administrative Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
3. The Government Pleader, Bombay High Court,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
4. The Maharashtra Animal & Fishery Science
University, Futala Lake Road, Nagpur,
through its Vice Chancellor/Registrar.
5. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee
Giripeth, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Sambre, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5
Shri P.A. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent no.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : 01.03.2016
wp3325.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
1. Leave is granted to add the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur as respondent no.5. Amendment be carried out
forthwith. Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional Government Pleader
waives notice on behalf of the newly added respondent. Leave is also
granted to amend the prayer clauses, which amendment shall be carried
out forthwith.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication dated 27.5.2015 issued by the respondent no.1 refusing
to consider the services rendered by the petitioner from 26.11.1997 till
her appointment with the respondent no.4 on 6.1.2009 for the purposes
of various service benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction
to be issued to the respondent no.5 - Scrutiny Committee to expeditiously
decide her caste claim.
4. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a clerk-
cum-typist with the respondent no.3 on a post which was reserved for a
Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner was called upon to submit her
caste claim and the same was ultimately submitted on 11.8.2008.
Thereafter pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent no.4
wp3325.15.odt
the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of senior clerk on
21.11.2008 on a post which was from the open category. The petitioner
was thereafter relieved on 6.1.2009 and joined the services thereafter
with the respondent no.4. The petitioner thereafter made representations
for grant of arrears as per the 6 th Pay Commission, but the respondent
no.3 informed the respondent no.4 - University that unless a caste validity
certificate was produced, the service book of the petitioner could not be
supplied. Ultimately, on 12.2.2015, the respondent no.3 issued a
communication to the respondent no.1 to take a decision in the matter
after which the impugned communication dated 27.5.2015 came to be
issued denying the benefits of earlier service to the petitioner on the
ground that her caste claim was not validated.
5. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by
Shri A.R. Sambre, the learned Counsel that the petitioner had submitted
the original caste certificate to the respondent no.2 in the year 2008. It is
further submitted that on 9.2.2016 all other necessary documents have
also been submitted to the respondent no.3. It is, therefore, prayed that a
direction be issued to the respondent no.5 - Scrutiny Committee to
expeditiously decide the caste claim.
6. Shri A.S. Fulzele, the learned Additional Government
Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Shri P.A. Jibhkate, the
wp3325.15.odt
learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 supported the impugned
communication dated 27.5.2015 on the ground that the caste claim of the
petitioner had not been verified. They however do not oppose the request
for expeditious consideration of the petitioner's caste claim.
7. In the aforesaid facts, it would be necessary for the
petitioner to have her caste claim verified. Hence, the respondent no.5 is
directed to verify the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of one
year from the date of the petitioner's appearance before the respondent
no.5 - Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the
respondent no.5 - Scrutiny Committee on 14.03.2016 to facilitate the
aforesaid process. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings with regard to communication dated 27.5.2015 after her
caste claim is verified. Needless to state that it is open for the respondents
to take further steps in case the caste claim of the petitioner is verified.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
