Raghunandan Dashrath Parate vs State Of Mah. Thr. Principal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10275 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:14483-DB




                 WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt                                     1/10


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 5096 of 2021

                      Raghunandan Dashrath Parate
                      Aged 59 years, Occupation-Retired
                      R/o. Plot No.32, Juna Subhedar Layout, Sharda Chowk,
                      Behind Bank of Maharashtra,
                      Ayodhyanagar, District Nagpur-24.        ..... PETITIONER
                                               ...V E R S U S...
                 1.   State of Maharashtra,
                      Through its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
                      Govt. of Maharashtra, Ministry of Tribal Development,
                      Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                 2.   Vice-Chairman,
                      Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
                      Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
                      Giripeth, Nagpur.
                 3.   Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary,
                      Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
                      Nagpur.
                 4.   The Commissioner,
                      Tribal Research and Training Institute,
                      Pune.
Respondent       5.   Shri Vinod Patil,
nos.5 to 7            Vice-Chairman of Caste Scrutiny Committee,
deleted as       6.   Manoj Chavan,
per Court's           Member Secretary of
order dated           Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.
28.02.2022       7.   Ganesh Ivnate,
Sd/- Counsel
                      Member of Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.
for petitioner
                 8.   Chief Engineer (Technical)
                      Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd.
                      Extrella Batteries, Expn Building, Dharavi Road,
                      Matunga, Mumbai-400 019.
                 9.   Chief Engineer(Gen. O and M)
                      Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station.
                      M.S.P. G.C.L., at Khaparkheda,
                      Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur, Pin-441 102. ...... RESPONDENTS
 WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt                                                                   2/10


 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri Anil Dhawas, Advocate for
petitioner.
Ms S. S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri O.A.Ghare, Advocate for respondent no.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CORAM :-        A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 01.08.2023
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON :05.10.2023

JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order passed

by the Scrutiny Committee on 03.06.2020 thereby invalidating the

petitioner's claim of belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has

also prayed that his employer be directed to release all his service benefits

pursuant to his superannuation from service.

3. The petitioner claims to belong to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. He

came to be appointed on the post of Chargeman Grade-II on 30.06.1983 with

the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board-respondent no.8. During

the course of service, he came to be promoted. While holding the post of

'Assistant Engineer', his tribe certificate was referred for verification. In

support of such claim the petitioner relied upon various old documents of his WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 3/10

fore-fathers with the entry 'Halba'. The Scrutiny Committee conducted an

enquiry through its Vigilance Cell and it noted various other documents

relating to the petitioner's blood relatives that had the entry 'Koshti'. After

granting an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the observations of

the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 03.06.2020

proceeded to invalidate his claim.

4. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner

referred to various documents that were produced by the petitioner and

verified by the Vigilance Cell to submit that the pre-constitutional documents

indicated that the forefathers of the petitioner belonged to 'Halba' Scheduled

Tribe. From the family tree of the petitioner, it was pointed out that his

father was Dashrath while his grand-father was Madhorao. Referring to

School Leaving Certificate of his father Dashrath wherein it was stated that

his father had taken education at the School run by the Nagpur Municipal

Corporation from 19.04.1916 to 30.04.1918, it was submitted that Entry

No.4369 in the Outward Register of the School indicated the entry 'Halba'.

The Scrutiny Committee was not justified in ignoring the said document on

the premise that it noticed a difference in the handwriting as regards the said

entry. It was submitted that neither the petitioner nor his father were

responsible for any alleged overwriting/change of ink with regard to said

entry and therefore the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit of the WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 4/10

same. Reference was made to the decision in Sayanna vs. State of

Maharashtra and others [(2009) 10 SCC 268]. It was submitted that in the

report of the Vigilance Cell a document relating to one Dasru Madhavrao was

sought to be relied upon which had the entry 'Koshti'. The name of the

petitioner's father was Dashrath and therefore the said document showing

the birth of Dasru on 01.07.1920 from village Wakodi, Taluka Saoner was

not liable to be relied upon. Reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell had

been given by the petitioner clarifying this relevant aspect. The said reply

was not taken into consideration while invalidating the petitioner's claim.

Since the oldest documents of the period from 1916 to 1918 had the entry

'Halba', the Scrutiny Committee ought to have allowed the petitioner's claim.

By relying upon a document of a person not related to the petitioner, his

claim had been invalidated. As a result of the order of invalidation, the

petitioner had not been paid his retiral dues. It was therefore submitted that

after setting aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, a direction be

issued to the employer to release the petitioner's retiral benefits. The

learned Senior Advocate also referred to the decision in Writ Petition

No.3001/2022 (Ashok Anandrao Dhapodkar vs. The Scheduled Tribes Caste

Scrutiny Committee and another) and prayed that the writ petition be

allowed.

WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 5/10

5. Ms S.S.Jachak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent nos. 1 to 4 supported the order passed by the Scrutiny

Committee. She submitted that during the course of vigilance enquiry the

statement of petitioner's brother Shriramchandra came to be recorded. In

the said statement he had stated that the family was residing at village

Wakodi, Taluka Saoner, District Nagpur and that the ancestral house of the

family was located there. On the basis of his statement, the school records

from the Zilla Parishad Primary School, Wakodi were examined and the entry

pertaining to the petitioner's father Dasru of the year 1928 was found.

Similarly, the documents pertaining to other blood relatives with the entry

'Koshti' were also found. Further it was noted that the claim of the

petitioner's real brother and sister had been invalidated by the Scrutiny

Committee and the said orders had attained finality. Since the claim of the

petitioner's blood relatives had been invalidated, it was not permissible for

the petitioner to claim otherwise. After considering all relevant aspects, the

Scrutiny Committee proceeded to invalidate the claim of the petitioner.

Since the document of the period from 1916 to 1918 on which the petitioner

sought to rely, was found to be doubtful, there was no reason to interfere

with the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee.

Shri O. A. Ghare, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent

no.9 submitted that since the petitioner had claimed that he belongs to

'Halba' Scheduled Tribe, his Tribe Certificate had been referred for WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 6/10

verification. Based on the outcome of the challenge raised to the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the respondent no.9 would take an

appropriate decision.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also

perused the records maintained by the Scrutiny Committee that were

produced for perusal. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the School Leaving

Certificate issued by the Head Mistress, Trimurtinagar Municipal School,

Nagpur to contend that for the period from 19.04.1916 to 30.04.1918 the

son of Madhorao and Janabai named Dashrath had taken education when he

was admitted to the second standard. The caste recorded is 'Halba'.

Dashrath is the father of the petitioner. On the other hand, the Vigilance Cell

has sought to refer to the extract of birth of a son to Madhavrao on

01.07.1920 named Dasru. The said document indicates that the child Dasru

was admitted in the School on 02.04.1928 in the first standard. The

petitioner disputes any connection with this document by urging that the

name mentioned is Dasru while his father's name is Dashrath.

7. Before considering this aspect, we find that as per the names of the

family members indicated in the family tree that has been prepared on the

basis of information supplied by the petitioner vide his affidavit dated

20.09.2013 placed before the Scrutiny Committee, Madhorao had four sons

namely Vithoba, Naru, Dashrath and Gopichand. With regard to Vithoba, the WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 7/10

report of the Vigilance Cell at Item 8 has referred to the School Register from

the Zilla Parishad School, Wakodi, Nagpur which indicates that the date of

birth of Vithoba Madhorao Koshti was shown as 1938 and the entry in the

School is shown on 01.04.1946. If according to the petitioner the eldest son

of Madhorao was Vithoba and his year of birth is shown as 1938 then the

document sought to be relied upon by the petitioner indicating education

being taken by the younger brother of Vithoba namely Dashrath between the

period from 11.04.1916 to 30.04.1918 in second standard would indicate

that Dashrath was born probably sometime in 1910-11. On the other hand,

the document referred to by the Vigilance Cell pertaining to Dasru

Madhavrao Koshti indicates the date of birth as 01.07.1920 and states that

he was admitted in School on 02.04.1928. Thus, both these documents, one

indicating probable year of birth as 1910-11 with the entry Dashrath and the

other indicating the date of birth as 01.07.1920 pertaining to Dasru

Madhavrao Koshti cannot be reconciled with the document of the elder

brother of Dashrath, namely Vithoba since his year of birth is shown as 1938.

We find from the record that Dashrath had seven issues being five

sons and two daughters. The date of birth of his elder son - Nareshchandra

is shown as 11.04.1952, the year of birth of his second son - Shriramchandra

is shown as 1956 while that of the petitioner is shown as 07.07.1961. His

younger brother-Parmanand is shown to be born on 30.08.1963. Thus, the

date of birth of these children of Dashrath would also have to be reconciled WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 8/10

with the probable date of birth of Dashrath.

8. We find that though this material in the form of old records has

been relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate his claim and has been

referred to by the Vigilance Cell and thereafter by the Scrutiny Committee to

disallow his claim, the relevant aspect as to age of Dashrath when compared

to the documents pertaining to his elder brother - Vithoba shown to be born

in 1938 has not been taken into consideration. We find that it would be

necessary for the petitioner to firstly explain the probable date of birth of his

father on the basis of documents sought to be relied upon by him which

explanation would be required to be thereafter considered by the Scrutiny

Committee. These aspects go to the root of the matter. Even assuming that

the petitioner can be permitted to rely upon the documents for the period

from 11.04.1916 to 30.04.1918, its relevance with the date of birth of the

elder brother of Dashrath namely Vithoba is also material. At this stage,

therefore, it is not necessary to conclusively record any finding with regard

to the relevance and/or authenticity of the said document on the premise

that there has been some overwriting of Entry No.4369 in the School

Register. That aspect can be considered alongwith all other relevant

documents.

9. In these facts, therefore, we find that since determination of the

social status of the petitioner would have various consequences, an WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 9/10

opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to explain these material

aspects which explanation can thereafter be considered by the Scrutiny

Committee. On this count, we are inclined to remand the proceedings to the

Scrutiny Committee to consider the claim afresh in the light of the

documents on record.

10. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(i) The order dated 03.06.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is

quashed and set aside.

(ii) The proceedings are remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh

consideration after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the

aspects referred to hereinabove including liberty to file additional reply, if

found necessary.

(iii) The Scrutiny Committee shall re-consider the claim in accordance

with law. It is at liberty to conduct such enquiry as is permissible in law

under the provisions of the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation

for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),

Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and other Backward Classes)

Act, 2001.

(iv) To enable consideration of the petitioner's claim, he shall appear

before the Scrutiny Committee on 13.10.2023. The adjudication be

completed within a period of four months from that date. It is clarified that WRIT PETITION-5096-2021(J).odt 10/10

all questions/issues are kept open for being considered by the Scrutiny

Committee in accordance with law.

11. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                                (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)                   (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)



                       Andurkar..




Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/10/2023 11:53:47