Bombay High Court
Anilkumar S/O Mannalal Singh vs Under Secretary, Govt. Of India, ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:2383-DB
-- 1 -- WP 466.2020 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 466 OF 2020
Anilkumar S/o Mannalal Singh
age : 62 years, Occ : Retired,
R/o 840, Pitruchhaya Building, .. Petitioner
C.A.Road, Jalalpura, Gandhibag,
Nagpur
Versus
1) Under Secretary,
Government of India,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Adv. VII Section, Room No.10,
5th Floor, Jeevan Vihar Bulding,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001
2) The Joint Commissioner and Vice-
Chairman,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, .. Respondents
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth,
Nagpur
3) Additional Commissioner (P&V),
Office of the Commissioner,
Customs & Central Excise,
Central Excise Building,
Dhamtari Road, Takrapara,
Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)
4) Additional Commissioner (P&V),
Customs & Central Excise (GST),
Revenue Building (GST Building),
Near Income Tax Office, Telangkhedi
Road, Nagpur
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for respondent No.2.
Mr. K.K.Nalamwar, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAGE 1 OF 4
-- 2 -- WP 466.2020 (J).doc
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 10, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Heard. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
(2) The challenge is raised to the order dated 20/05/2019
passed by the respondent No.2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (for short 'the Committee') thereby
invalidating the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Thakur"
Scheduled Tribe and for quashing and setting aside the communication
dated 06/01/2020 issued by respondent No.3- the Additional
Commissioner (P & V) directing the petitioner to deposit all the financial
benefits availed by him by virtue of his appointment in the department.
Also challenge is laid to the validity of Section 6(1) and Rule 9 of the
Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of)
Certificate Rules, 2003, as unconstitutional and in contravention of the
direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. (for short - "the Rules 2003")
(3) During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner
amended the petition and challenged the letters dated 17/01/2020 and
20/01/2020 issued by respondent No.3, thereby requesting the Pay
and Account officer to stop his pension from January 2020 onwards.
PAGE 2 OF 4
-- 3 -- WP 466.2020 (J).doc
(4) It is pertinent to note that during the argument, on
instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his claim
only to prayer clauses (iv), (v-a) and (v-b) and given up his claim for
the rest of the prayers. His statement is accepted. He further
contended that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in
Hemant S/o Govindrao Langhe vs. Deputy Director, Health Services,
Nagpur Circle in Writ Petition No.2904/2022, decided on
25/08/2023; it is therefore contended that the petitioner be granted
retirement benefits.
(5) In response, learned counsel for the respondents does
not dispute the proposition laid down in Hemant S/o Govindrao Langhe
(supra) and that the facts in both the matters are identical. What is
necessary to note is that the petitioner was appointed as 'Inspector of
Central Excise' (Ordinary Grade) in the Scheduled Tribe category and
was promoted from time to time. Lastly, he got voluntary retirement on
22/02/2018, when the petitioner was working as an 'Assistant
Commissioner' [IRS (C&C1)/Group-A Officer].
(6) The petitioner's caste certificate was referred to the
Committee on 15/12/2009. His claim was rejected on 20/05/2019, i.e.
after his retirement. Respondent No.3 issued a communication dated
06/01/2020, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit all the
financial benefits availed by him by virtue of his appointment in the
PAGE 3 OF 4
-- 4 -- WP 466.2020 (J).doc
department, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said
communication, so also by communication dated 17/01/2020 and
20/01/2020, it was informed to the petitioner that his pension was
stopped by the Chief Account Officer and Pay and Accounts Officer,
therefore, the petitioner amended the petition.
(7) In Hemant S/o Govindrao Langhe (supra), while
considering a similar issue after considering the law on the point, it has
been held that since there was no statutory adjudication while the
petitioner was in service, his retirement benefits could not be withheld.
Applying the same dictum, we hold that the petitioner would be entitled
to his retirement benefits, as there is no statutory adjudication
regarding the validity of his 'Tribe Claim' during his service tenure. The
petition is accordingly partly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (iv) and
(v-a) to the extent it is permissible under the service rules governing
the petitioner. The benefits be paid to the petitioner as early as possible
and in any case within a period of eight weeks from today. The petition,
to the extent of the rest of the prayer clauses, is dismissed. No costs.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [ AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 4 OF 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/03/2025 11:42:52
