Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar Laxman Patre @ ... vs Dvl.Controller & Another on 15 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp1084.99.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.1084 of 1999
Chandrashekhar s/o. Laxman Patre
@ Barapatre, Aged about 41 years,
Occ. Service, r/o. Mohadi, Tq. and
Distt. Bhandara. .... PETITIONER
//Versus//
1. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Bhandara.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Principal Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. .... RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr.S.N.Tapadia, Advocate h/f. Mr.V.V.Bhangde, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr.D.L.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : November 15, 2016.
2 wp1084.99.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Though the petitioner has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the Order passed by respondent no.2/Committee,
dt.30.1.1999, he has restricted his claim in the petition in respect of
protection of his services on the basis of Judgment of Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of
Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and Ors. reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. The
petitioner, who claims to be belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe, was
appointed as a Conductor with respondent no.1 in the year 1987.
However, since the petitioner's appointment was against the post
reserved for Scheduled Tribe, his caste claim came to be referred to
respondent no.2/Committee for verification. By the impugned order, the
said claim was rejected on 30.1.1999.
3. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of present petition. Perusal of the record would reveal
that, vide order dt.5.5.1999, this Court had directed respondent no.1 not
to act on the order of Scrutiny Committee and if any action is taken, to
take back the petitioner in service and to pay him regular salary since
3 wp1084.99.odt
the date of his joining.
4. The Court had kept the question of backwages pending, to be
decided at the stage of final hearing of the petition.
5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun s/o
Vishwanath Sonone (cited supra) has held that where a person has put
in long years of service on the basis of claim of belonging to a reserved
category and whose claim is invalidated, he is entitled to protection of
services provided that there is no finding of fraud.
6. Perusal of affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2
reveals that there is no finding of fraud as against the petitioner. In any
case, the petitioner is continued in service on the basis of interim order
passed by this Court.
7. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner is
entitled to protection of his services. However, it is informed that the
petitioner has already retired on 31.5.2016. Therefore, the petition is
rejected insofar as the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing and
setting aside of the order of Scrutiny Committee is concerned. However,
we direct that the services rendered by the petitioner shall stand
4 wp1084.99.odt
protected and the petitioner would be entitled to the terminal benefits.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to
any benefits hereinafter on the basis of his claim of belonging to
Scheduled Tribe nor he would be entitled to any backwages for the
period during which he was out of employment.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
ig JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
