Bombay High Court
Umesh S/O. Nagorao Nadage vs The Schedule Tribe Caste ... on 19 October, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp5540.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5540 OF 2016.
PETITIONER: Umesh s/o Nagorao Nadage,
aged about 58 years, Survey No.27-A,
Road No.11B, Munjoba Vasti, P.O.
Dhanori, Pune - 411015.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Scheduled tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member Secretary and Deputy Director,
Sanna Building, Opposite Govt.Rest
House, Camp Amravati - 444601.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Pune, Yashavantrao
Chavan Bhavan, Pune - 411001.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt.T.H.Udeshi, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent no.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE: 19th OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The petitioner lottery.maharashtra.gov.inhas
approached this Court claiming for declaration that he belongs to
"Halba" - Scheduled Tribe which is recognized as 'Scheduled Tribe'
and for further direction to respondent no.2 not to withhold his
pensionary benefits.
3. The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to "Halba"-
Scheduled Tribe was appointed as a Peon in the office of the
respondent no.2 on 18th of February, 1981. It appears that since
petitioner's appointment was against the post reserved for
Scheduled Tribe his case was forwarded by respondent no.2 to
respondent no.1 - Committee for deciding the caste claim.
4. Since 2006 the caste claim of the petitioner is pending
with respondent no.1 and is not as yet decided by respondent
no.1.
5. In the meantime, the petitioner has superannuated on
31st of March, 2016. However, since the caste claim of the
petitioner is pending before respondent no.1, his terminal
benefits have been withheld.
6.
It is not in the hand of the petitioner as to within how
much time Committee will decide the caste claim of the petitioner.
In any case, learned Assistant Government Pleader makes a
statement that the caste claim of the petitioner would be decided
within a period of six months from today.
7. Be that as it may, the petitioner has completed his
services and on superannuation retired from the services. We
find that if petitioner's services are pensionable merely because his
caste claim is not decided by the Committee cannot be a ground
to withhold his terminal benefits. The respondent no.2 is duly
served on the notice for final disposal, however, he chose not to
appear.
8. In that view of the matter, we allow the petition in the
following terms.
(i) The respondent no.1 - Committee shall decide
the caste claim of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible and in any case
within a period of six months from today.
(ii) Respondent no.2 is directed to forthwith
release the terminal benefits of the petitioner
and start paying the pension to the petitioner
from the months of November, 2016.
(iii) Needless to state that all arrears of pension
and terminal benefits would be released
within a period of three months from today.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
