Jagpal S/O Ramaji Katarpawar vs Western Coalfields Ltd. Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3178 Bom

 1906WP4267.13-Judgment                                                                         1/3


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4267   OF    2013


 PETITIONER :-                        Jagpal  S/o   Ramaji   Katarpawar,   aged   about
                                      48   years,   Occupation-Senior   Overman,   R/o
                                      Sasti   Dhoptala   Township,   Qtr.   No.B-160,
                                      Sasti, Tahsil Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1) Western Coalfields Ltd., through its General
                                    Manager, Office of General Manager, Sasti,
                                    Tahsil Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. 
                                 2) Western   Coalfields  Ltd.,   through   its   Senior
                                    Manager,   (Mining),   Disciplinary   Authority,
                                    Paoni   Opencast   Mine,   Taluka   Rajura,   Dist.
                                    Chandrapur. 
                                 3) The Caste Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled
                                    Tribe,   through   its   Member   Secretary,
                                    Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Giripeth, Nagpur. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Mr. R.S.Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioner.
                         None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
     Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.3.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    ARUN  D. UPADHYE
                                                                     ,   JJ.

DATED : 19.06.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order of termination issued by the Western Coalfields Limited dated

1906WP4267.13-Judgment 2/3

01/08/2013. The petitioner has sought his continuation in service till

his caste claim is decided.

The petitioner was appointed by the respondent-Western

Coalfields Limited on a post meant for the scheduled tribes. Since the

petitioner had claimed to belong to Chhatri scheduled tribe and his

caste claim was pending for verification before the scrutiny committee,

when this writ petition was filed against the order of the dismissal of

the petitioner from service, this court had, by an interim order, directed

the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. It

was brought to the notice of this court during the pendency of the writ

petition that the petitioner was not cooperating with the scrutiny

committee and was not presenting himself before the scrutiny

committee despite the service of notice on him. We had, by recording

the aforesaid objection raised on behalf of the scrutiny committee, by

our order dated 08/01/2015, directed the petitioner to appear before

the scrutiny committee and had asked the scrutiny committee to decide

the caste claim of the petitioner within 8 months.

It appears that the scrutiny committee has not decided the

caste claim of the petitioner, till date. If that is so, it would be

necessary to dispose of this writ petition with a direction against the

1906WP4267.13-Judgment 3/3

scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a

time frame. The respondent-scrutiny committee could be directed to

decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 9 months and the services

of the petitioner could be protected for the said period.

In these circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ

petition with a direction against the respondent No.3-scrutiny

committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 9 months

and by protecting the services of the petitioner for a period of 9 months.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                          JUDGE 


 KHUNTE