Bombay High Court
Jaisingh S/Op Ganeshsingh Baghel vs Union Of India, Ministry Of ... on 15 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17566
1/4 wp.8557.18-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8557/2018
Jaisingh s/o. Ganeshsingh Baghel,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Retired from the office of
DAGPT, Nagpur,
R/o. 54, Shukla Nagar, Parvati Nagar, Nagpur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Chief Postmaster General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
3. Director of Accounts (Postal),
Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440 001.
4. The Postmaster General,
Shankar Nagar, Nagpur - 440 001.
5. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Mr. R. V. Parsodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. A. Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent No.5/State.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND
MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 15.12.2023.
JUDGMENT :
[PER : MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J]
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the parties.
2/4 wp.8557.18-J.odt
2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee invalidating his caste claim as "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The
petitioner has also sought to quash the charge sheet dated 29.01.2015
issued by the respondent No.3 initiating enquiry against his and further
seeks directions to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to release his retiral benefits,
death-cum-retirement gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, pension
etc.
3. The petitioner claims to belong to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe
enlisted at Serial No.44 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was
appointed as Junior Accountant in the office of respondent No.3 - Director
of Accounts (Postal). The respondent No.3 did not refer the caste claim
of the petitioner for verification during his service of 33 years though he
had submitted the caste certificate and the other relevant documents.
Instead respondent No.3 issued charge sheet dated 29.01.2015 for non-
submission of caste validity certificate. The petitioner superannuated on
31.10.2018, and on the same date the Caste Scrutiny Committee
invalidated his caste claim. The respondent No.3 has withheld the retiral
benefits of the petitioner in view of pendency of the departmental enquiry.
Hence, this petition is for the aforestated relief.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
restricts his challenge to withholding of retrial benefits and that he does
3/4 wp.8557.18-J.odt
not wish to seek relief in respect of the other prayers. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner submits that the case in hand is squarely covered by the
decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.2397/2021 (Ashok Natthuppa
Shelgenwar Vs. Accountant General (A & E) and Ors.) decided on
27.07.2023.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits
that the caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated and in the
absence of challenge to the said order, the entry in service cannot be
considered to be legal and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for
retiral benefits.
6. We have perused the records and considered the submissions
of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
7. The petitioner was appointed on 17.05.1985 and his caste
claim was submitted for validation at the fag end of his career and came to
be invalidated on the date of his retirement on 31.10.2018. The
respondents did not take any action against the petitioner for over 33
years and has sought to withhold the retiral benefits without any statutory
adjudication. In Ashok Natthuppa Shelgenwar (supra), the Division Bench
of this Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State
of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. reported in
4/4 wp.8557.18-J.odt
(2013) 12 SCC 210 has held that withholding of pensionary benefits has
to be supported by a statutory order in that regard and in the absence of
such order, the petitioner is not liable to be deprived of his pensionary
benefits. The case in hand is fully covered by this decision. Considering
the delay in taking action and in the absence of any statutory adjudication,
the petitioner cannot be deprived of retiral benefits.
8. Under the circumstances, while maintaining the order of the
Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner, we
direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to release the retiral benefits of the
petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of the judgment.
9. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
RGurnule.
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/12/2023 16:21:05
