Bombay High Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Tribal Rights Protection Committee, ... on 29 November, 2023
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Sandeep V. Marne
2023:BHC-AS:35482-DB
Neeta Sawant 1/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 95 OF 2023
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17140 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2412 OF 2023
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg,
...PETITIONER
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 021.
(ORIG. RESPONDENT
NOS. 3 AND 4)
:VERSUS:
1. Tribal Rights Protection
Committee, Maharashtra State
Having its office at Kashinath
Nagar, Taloda, Tq. Taldoa, Dist.
Nandurbar - 425 413 Through its
Treasurer, Mr. Prakash Mirya
Thakare.
2. Union of India Through its
Secretary, Ministry of Tribal
Affairs, Having its office at
Ground Floor, 'D' Wing, Shastri
Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. Hon'ble Secretary Department of
Personnel and Training
Government of India.
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 03:38:56 :::
Neeta Sawant 2/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
4. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
- 400 032.
5. Commissioner, Tribal Research
and Training Institute, 28 Queen's
Garden, Pune-411 001. ....RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. Omprakash Jha, a/w Mr. Roop Basu i/b The Law Point, for the
Review Petitioner.
Mr. Siddeshwar N. Biradar, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. Government Pleader for Respondent No.4-
State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
Reserved On : 8 November 2023.
Pronounced On : 29 November, 2023.
Judgment (Per : Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) has filed this
petition seeking review of the Order dated 4 July 2023 passed in Writ
Petition No. 2412 of 2023.
2. By the said Order, this Court has directed the Senior
Divisional Manager, Satara Division of LIC to comply with the
provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Neeta Sawant 3/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate
Act, 2000 (the Act) within a period of four months and to forward the
proposals of 38 employees, included in the list submitted to this Court
on 13 February 2023 to the Scrutiny Committee.
3. Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioner would submit that, there are errors apparent on the face of
the record in the Order dated 4 July 2023. That this Court has ignored
that, the Original Petitioner did not have any locus to file the Writ
Petition as none of its fundamental right were violated or breached.
The Petition was in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and could
not have been decided as a Writ Petition. That, the 38 employees
whose cases are directed to be sent for verification have not been heard
before passing the Order under review. That, those employees have
been in service for last several years, some of them have retired and
therefore their cases now cannot be sent for scrutiny at such a belated
stage. That most of the said 38 employees were recruited in service
prior to coming into force of the Act and therefore the provisions of
Section 6(3) of the Act would not apply to them. That scope of the Act
is restricted to the State of Maharashtra and would not apply to the
petitioning Corporation, whose activities are spread throughout the
territory of India. He therefore prayed that, the Review Petition be
allowed and the Order under Review may be set aside.
4. Mr. Biradar, appearing for the Original Petitioner, opposed
the Review Petition stating that, the law about applicability of the
provisions of the Act to the employees of the Central Government
Neeta Sawant 4/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
PSUs as well as to the employees recruited prior to the coming into
effect of the Act has already been settled by various judgments of this
Court. That LIC was being represented by an Advocate and it never
requested for an opportunity to file Affidavit-in-Reply when the
petition was heard from time to time by this Court. That in any case,
LIC cannot be said to be an aggrieved party by the Order of this Court,
which merely directs forwarding of proposals of scrutiny of caste
certificates of its 38 employees as per the law. He would pray for
dismissal of the Review Petition.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. It is the settled position of law that, the scope of review can
be restricted only to the points which are pleaded and/or argued before
the Court and which were not considered. Review of an Order cannot
be sought by raising new contentions and/or grounds. It cannot be
contended that, the Court has committed an error in not considering
the submissions, which were never canvassed before it.
7. It is not the case of LIC in its Petition that, the points that
are sought to be canvassed for seeking review were ever argued before
the Court at the time of passing of Order dated 4 July 2023.
Nonetheless, we proceed to examine whether LIC has made out any
case for review of the Order dated 4 July 2023.
8. So far as objection on non-grant of opportunity to file
Affidavit-in-Reply to LIC is concerned, we find that it was always open
for LIC to file its Affidavit-in-reply, if it really desired to do so. The
Writ Petition was listed and heard on 27 February 2023, 13 April 2023
Neeta Sawant 5/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
and 4 July 2023. On all three dates, the LIC was represented by its
Advocate who did not file reply. It is always open for a party to file
reply opposing the petition. We find that LIC took a chance by not
filing Affidavit-in-reply and cannot now be permitted to seek review of
the order on the pretext that it was not afforded an opportunity to file
reply.
9. So far as the issue of absence of locus of the Original
Petitioner to file the petition is concerned, we do not find any error
apparent on the face of the record in this Court entertaining the Writ
Petition. The Original Petitioner was espousing the cause of genuine
Scheduled Tribe employees, reservation meant for whom is allegedly
misused by persons who actually do not belong to Scheduled Tribes. It
petitioned this Court with a complaint that the LIC was not fulfilling
the statutory obligations under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act
by not forwarding the cases of employees taking benefit of ST
reservations for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. The Petition
was thus filed to mandate fulfillment of statutory obligations prescribed
under Section 6(3) of the Act by LIC. We therefore find that, the
Petitioner had locus to file the Writ Petition. On the contrary,
considering the nature of directions that are issued by this Court in the
Order under review, we doubt whether LIC would have locus to file the
present Review Petition. The Order under review does not affect the
interest of LIC as such. LIC is merely directed to forward the cases of
38 employees for scrutiny to the Committee and we fail to comprehend
as to what prejudice LIC has caused on account of that direction.
Therefore, far from questioning the locus of the Original Petitioner to
Neeta Sawant 6/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
file the petition, we doubt LIC's locus to file the present Review
Petition.
10. The issue as to applicability of provisions of the Act to the
employees of Central Government and its PSUs as well as to employees
recruited prior to the enactment of the Act is no longer res-integra.
This Court in Kawdu s/o. Dewaji Paunikar V/s. State of Maharshtra &
Ors. reported in 2001 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 711, has held that, employees
of the Central Government are covered by the provisions of the Act.
The SLP filed against that judgment came to be rejected by the
Supreme Court by Order dated 8 May 2021. The Division Bench of
this Court in Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and Ors. V/s. Union of India
(Writ Petition No. 7036 of 2012 decided on 23 October 2013) dealt
with the issue, similar to the one involved in the present case. The
Division Bench not only held that, the provisions of the Act are
applicable to the employees of the Central Government but entertained
the petition filed by Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti (organisation similar to
the Original Petitioner) and directed all the appointing authorities of
the Central Government to comply with the requirement of sub-
section (3) of Section (6). The issue about applicability of the
provisions of the Act to the employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
attracted attention of Division Bench of this Court in Ashabai Bhila
Koli @ Ashabai Devman Borse V/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd . By its
Judgment dated 13 March 2020, the Division Bench of this Court has
answered the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act to
the employees of BSNL as well as to the employees recruited prior to
Neeta Sawant 7/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
the enactment of the Act. This Court answered both the issues in
paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the said Judgment as under :
9. The respondent/ Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L)
is a Public Sector Undertaking. The said fact is not disputed.
The petitioners are the employees of a public sector
undertaking. Section 6(3) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of
2001 would squarely apply with all its rigors.
10. Some of the petitioners are appointed from the year 1982.
According to the petitioners, at the time they were appointed
there was no condition imposed of submitting the validity
certificate nor the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 was in
force, as such they cannot be directed to submit the validity
certificate. The said argument of the petitioners is required to
be repealed at the threshold. The Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of
2001 came into force as a result of the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others
(supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed
the State Governments to constitute committees assisted by
vigilance cells to scrutinise and decide the cases expeditiously.
The Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing
Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish
Balaram Bahira and others (supra) was dealing with the case of
an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking. In the said case,
the plea that appointments of the persons made prior to the
date on which the Act came into force would not be required to
Neeta Sawant 8/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
submit validity was rejected. The Apex Court interpreted
Section 7 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. The Apex
Court observed that the expression before or after
commencement of this Act under Section 7 of the Maharashtra
Act No. XXIII of 2001 indicates that the scrutiny committee
constituted U/Sec. 6 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001
is empowered to cancel caste certificate whether it was issued
prior to the enforcement of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of
2001 or thereafter. Absence of the word before or after
commencement of the Act in Section 10 makes no substantive
difference because withdrawal of benefit as provided U/Sec. 10
is an event which flows naturally and as plain consequence of
invalidation of a claim.
11. Thus, the issue of applicability of the provisions of the Act
to the employees of the Central Government as well as to the
employees recruited prior to the enactment of the Act is no more res-
integra. In fact all the Judgments referred above, were produced by the
Original Petitioners alongwith the petition and it is surprising that
despite exposition of law in the above judgments, the LIC has chosen
to file Review Petition raising the issues which are already settled by the
above judgments.
12. We therefore do not find any error apparent on the face of
the record in the Order under review.
13. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Neeta Sawant 9/9 RP-95-2023(JR)
29 November 2023
14. In view of dismissal of Review Petition, Interim
Application No.17140 of 2023 does not survive and is also disposed
off.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. A.S.GADKARI, J.
