Bombay High Court
Ku. Mangala D/O Aagmaiyya Tallewar ... vs The Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny ... on 15 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17639-DB
1 WP1917.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1917/2018
Ku. Mangala D/o Aagmaiyya Tallewar,
(after marriage Smt. Sangita Sudhir
Marsattiwar), aged about 52 Yrs.,
Occ. Clerk in Industrial Court,
Nagpur R/o Raj Nagar, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur,
through its Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Bhavan, Giripeth,
Nagpur.
2. The President, Industrial Court,
Maharashtra, 2nd Floor, Administrative
Building, Near Chetna College,
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Sharma, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
----------------
CORAM :- SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESAI &
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED :- 15.12.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2 WP1917.2018.odt
2. The challenge is to the invalidation of the caste claim
of the petitioner as belonging to "Chhatri" (Scheduled Tribe) by
the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner also seeks directions to
respondent No.2 to release the entire retiral benefits viz.leave
encashment, gratuity, commutation of pension and regular
pension.
3. The petitioner who claims to be of "Chhatri"
(Scheduled Caste), was appointed as clerk in Industrial Court,
Nagpur. The Caste certificate issued in this regard was forwarded
to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee
invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner mainly, on the basis of
the Vigilance Cell Report, which relied upon a document (Kotwal
entry), of the year 1930, which records that Aneya son of
Bangaru Darji was born on 29.01.1930. The said entry is of the
cousin of the petitioner and records his caste as Darji. The
petitioner claims that Darji is not a caste but a profession (tailor).
Hence, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not justified in
invalidating the caste claim on the basis of the said document by
3 WP1917.2018.odt
ignoring all other documents, which prove that the petitioner
belongs to Chhatri Scheduled Caste.
4. The petitioner has relied upon the Government
Resolution dated 14.12.2022,wherein the Government has taken
a policy decision not to deprive the Government employees of
retiral benefits on the basis of invalidation of caste claim. The
petitioner has relied upon the decision in Writ Petition No. 248
of 2020 (Shamrao Shrawanji Nikhare (dead) through Legal
Heirs .v/s. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
and anr.) to contend that she is entitled for retiral benefits despite
invalidation of the caste claim.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. We have
perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions
submits that the petitioner is restricting his relief to release all
4 WP1917.2018.odt
retiral benefits. He has relied upon the Government Resolution
dated 14.12.2022 and the decision of this Court in Shamrao
Shrawanji Nikhare (supra) to contend that the petitioner is
entitled for retiral benefits despite invalidation of caste claim.
7. The Government Resolution dated 14.12.2022
stipulates that the Government employees shall not be deprived
of retiral benefits in view of invalidation of caste claim. Relying
upon the said Government Resolution this Court has ordered
release of retiral benefits in the case of Shamrao Shrawanji
Nikhare (supra) as also in the case of Ashok Natthuppa
Shelgenwar .Vs. Accountant General (A and E) and ors. (Writ
Petition No.2397 of 2021 and in the case of Kishor Govindrao
Hinganikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (Writ Petition No.
228 of 2022). The learned Assistant Government Pleader has
not been able to point out any distinguishing features in this case
vis-a-vis the aforesaid cases decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to
deprive the petitioner of retiral benefits.
5 WP1917.2018.odt
8. Hence, the petition is allowed and the respondent
No.2 is directed to release the entire retiral benefits of the
petitioner within six weeks from the date of receiving of copy of
this judgment.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall
be no orders as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESAI, J.)
Tambaskar.
