Abdul Javed Abdul Habib Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14163 Bom

                                      .. 1 ..


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       1014 Writ Petition No.3027 Of 2021


Abdul Javed Abdul Habib Ansari
Age : 45 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. Old Power House Jintur Road
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani                                         .. Petitioner

         Versus

1.       The State of Maharashtra

2.       The General Manager,
         State Transport, Central Office
         Mumbai

3.       The Divisional Controller,
         State Transport, Parbhani,
         Dist. Parbhani

4.       The Depot Manager,
         State Transport, Parbhani,
         Dist. Parbhani

5.       The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
         Aurangabad Division, Near Shivaji High
         School, Aurangabad

6.       Deputy Commissioner,
         District Caste Scrutiny Committee,
         Parbhani                                         .. Respondents
                                    ...

Mr G.K. Muneshwar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr K.N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6
Mr A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4
                                       ...




::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 12:43:34 :::
                                        .. 2 ..


                                CORAM            :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                                     R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

                                DATE             :   30-09-2021


ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :


 1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

 parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.



2.       Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.



 3.      The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the

 petitioner is the employee with respondent - MSRTC. He was

 appointed from OBC category. He had to submit the validity within

 six months.         The validation proceedings with regard to the caste

 claim of the petitioner is pending with the Committee. Only on the

 ground that the petitioner could not submit validity certificate, he has

 been terminated from the service.               The same is impugned in the

 present writ petition.



 4.      On the last date, we had asked learned AGP Mr Lokhande to

 take instructions about the status of the validation proceedings filed

 by the petitioner. The learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the

 matter is now being transferred to the Committee at Parbhani and the




::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021                          ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 12:43:34 :::
                                     .. 3 ..

 same would be dealt with by the Committee at Parbhani.



 5.      It appears that the validation proceedings with regard to the

 caste claim of the petitioner is pending with the Committee. The

 vigilance is not yet conducted. Until the vigilance is conducted, the

 petitioner has no role to play. It is not in the hands of the litigants to

 get the validation proceedings decided within a stipulated period.



 6.      In light of the above, we pass the following order.


                                   ORDER

(i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondent - M.S.R.T.C. shall reinstate the petitioner in service on his original position, which he was occupying on the date of termination.

(iii) The petitioner is given continuity in service.

(iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled for the back-wages for the period from 21-12-2019 till reinstatement.

(v) The respondent - employer shall reinstate the petitioner within 15 days from today.

(vi) The respondent - Committee shall decide the validation proceedings, expeditiously and preferably within nine months.

.. 4 ..

(vii) The employer may take further course of action depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee in the validation proceedings.

7. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.

      ( R. N. LADDHA )                       ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
           JUDGE                                       JUDGE
                                     ...




Gajanan