Bombay High Court
Ku Anita Surajsingh Bais vs Chief Executive Officer & Another on 5 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 050118 Judg. wp 3166.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.3166 of 2004
Ku. Anita Surajsingh Bais,
Assistant Teacher, Panchayat Samiti, Patur,
District Akola. .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola.
2] Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3] Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, District Amravati.
( Amended as per Court's order
dated 30-11-17 ) .... Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Sirpurkar, Adv. for petitioner.
Shri. Jaipurkar, Adv. for resp. no.1.
Mrs. Mehta, AGP for resp. no.3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 05th
January, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar for the petitioner, learned
Advocate Shri Jaipurkar for respondent no.1 and Mrs. Mehta, the learned AGP
for respondent no.3. Nobody for respondent no.2.
2] Learned Advocate Shri Jaipurkar for respondent no.1, submits that
he is still awaiting instructions as power has been filed recently. He adds that
there is an additional affidavit placed on record along with application for
appropriate orders and he is awaiting instructions on the contents thereof.
2 050118 Judg. wp 3166.04.odt
3] Today, the matter is listed for final hearing. The case of the
petitioner in brief is, without waiting for caste validation her services were sought
to be terminated. The petition, accordingly, has been filed on 19-07-2004 and
communication dated 03-07-2004, calling upon the petitioner to submit the
documents necessary for caste verification has been questioned.
4] By that communication, the petitioner was given time of seven
days' to produce validity or then necessary documents, else the employer
warned that a presumption of playing fraud would be drawn and her services
would be terminated and an offence would be registered.
5] On 14-01-2005, while issuing rule in the matter, this Court granted
interim relief and restrained the respondents from acting upon the said
communication dated 03-07-2004. However, the petitioner was asked to get her
caste claim duly scrutinized and obtain validity in the very same order.
6] No steps have been taken either by the petitioner or by her
employer thereafter and the petitioner continues in service.
7] Learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar for the petitioner, submits that as
the caste claim is still not verified or invalidated, the petitioner cannot be
terminated.
8] The learned AGP pointed out that she appears for respondent
no.3- Scrutiny Committee which has been added for the first time on
30-11-2017. She submits that, thus, for period of over 13 years, the interim
orders have been enjoyed without getting the Committee into picture. She,
therefore, submits that for this conduct the writ petition should be dismissed.
3 050118 Judg. wp 3166.04.odt
9] In brief reply, learned Advocate for the petitioner, invited our
attention to the additional affidavit placed on record on 06-11-2017. In that
affidavit, in paragraph 2, various dates right from 03-07-2004, 06-07-2004,
10-12-2005, 03-02-2006 and onwards up to 11-02-2013 have been pointed out
and it is submitted that the petitioner has done everything possible for getting
the caste certificate verified. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits
that the necessary documents for verification were also supplied to the employer.
10] The employer-respondent no. 2 though served has chosen not to
appear. It appears that on account of Inter District Transfer, the petitioner now
is working with respondent no.1 only.
11] The petitioner in affidavit sworn in October, 2017 has disclosed her
age to be 43 years.
12] Upon instructions, learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar also submitted
that if the Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to verify the caste claim within
stipulated time, the petitioner is ready and willing to work during the said period
on 90% salary.
13] In this situation, we find that the interest of justice can be met with
by directing the employer of the petitioner to forthwith forward the caste claim of
the petitioner to respondent no.3-Committee for its verification. The Committee
shall, thereafter, verify the same as per law. However, till the Committee
completes this exercise, the petitioner shall be paid 90% of her total salary as an
interim measure by her employer. The same shall be subject to the final orders
of the Committee in the matter.
14] Accordingly, we grant the petitioner liberty to submit all documents
4 050118 Judg. wp 3166.04.odt
in support of her caste claim/copies thereof once again to her employer within two
weeks. Her employer shall after receipt of those documents within next two
weeks forward the same to respondent no.3-Committee.
15] The Committee shall then proceed further with verification of caste
claim as per the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate
Act, 2000 and attempt to complete it within next one year. During this period i.e.
till Committee passes final orders on the caste claim of the petitioner, the
petitioner shall be paid 90% of the amount of her monthly salary as her wage
provisionally.
16] This arrangement shall be subject to final orders of the Scrutiny
Committee in the matter. If the Committee validates the caste claim, the
remaining 10% of salary shall be made over to the petitioner in next four weeks.
17] Needless to mention that if petitioner submits the required
documents to her employer within time specified supra, till orders of the Scrutiny
Committee in the matter as directed supra, the petitioner cannot be terminated
from services.
18] With these directions and observations, we partly allow the writ
petition and dispose of it.
19] Pending civil applications, if any, also disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
