Vithal Bhaduji Shrirame vs Committee For Scru.& Veri.Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3071 Bom

                                                 1              wp3982.00.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3982 OF 2000


            Vithal Bhaduji Shrirame,
            aged about 56 years, Occ. Service,
            R/o. Sindewahi, Tah. Sindewahi,
            District-Chandrapur                  ......                     PETITIONER

                                 ...VERSUS...

 1.         Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
            of Tribes Claims, through its Chairman,
            Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Giripeth,
            Nagpur.

 2.         Regional Manager, Forest Development
            Corporation, Maharashtra, North
            Chandrapur Region, Chandrapur.

 3.      The State of Maharashtra,
         Through its Secretary,
         Forest Department, Mantralayta, 
         Mumbai                                           ......       RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 None for Petitioner.
 Shri V.P.Maldhure, Advocate, for respondent No.2
 Ms. Geeta Tiwari, AGP for Respondent no. 3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
                                        Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

                          DATE    : 12      th   JUNE,  2017 .

 ORAL JUDGMENT (per Deshpande, J.)


            1]             The petitioner was initially appointed on the post

of Forest Guard in the year 1969 and was thereafter

promoted to the post of Forester. He was further promoted

2 wp3982.00.odt

to the post of Range Forest Officer on 28.06.1982 and it

seems that from that post he was superannuated on

30.06.2000.

2] The claim of the petitioner was for Mana -

Scheduled Tribe Category and it has been rejected by

impugned order by the Committee for Scrutiny and

Verification of Tribes Claim, Nagpur, which is the subject

matter of challenge in this petition.

3] The order impugned does not record any reason.

It does not take into consideration the documents filed by the

petitioner in support of his caste claim for Mana - Scheduled

Tribe category. No one appears for the petitioner. Shri

Maldhure, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.2 - Forest Development Corporation has invited our

attention to the reply dated 21.01.2003 filed under the

solemn affirmation of the then Regional Manager of Forest

Development Corporation. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the reply

filed by the Forest Development Corporation is reproduced

below.

"5. The present Respondent further points out that as per the Government Resolution No. BCC/1094/Pr.No./68/94-16-B; Dtd. 15/6/1995, certain caste including the caste of the petitioner was included in the special backward category and it was resolved that the persons who had been

3 wp3982.00.odt

appointed or promoted on the basis of the caste certificate should not be reverted or removed from the services.

6. The respondent submits that the petitioner stood retired from the service on 30.06.2000 on his attaining superannuation age and all the retirement and terminal benefits of the petitioner like gratuity, GSLIS and leave salary encashment which were due from this Respondent have been released by the office of the Respondent Corporation. Thus, in the prevailing circumstances, the petitioner is not in the service of the Respondent.

4] In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the

respondent Forest Development Corporation, the petitioner

was entitled to protection in service on the post of Range

Forest Officer as per the Government Resolution dated

15.06.1995. He has been paid all the retirement benefits

including gratuity and leave salary encashment. In these

circumstances, we need not to consider the validity of the

order dated 23.03.2000 passed by the said Committee.

However, since the order is unreasoned, we would like to

clarify that the same shall not come in the way of the claim of

any of the blood relatives of the petitioner and the Committee

shall be at liberty to decide such cases on their own merits.

In view of above, the petition stands disposed of.

                                        JUDGE                                     JUDGE
 Rvjalit