Ashok Mahadeorao Pathrabe v. Executive Director

Vasanti A. Naik, J.:— RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of termination, dated 27.11.2010 and seeks the protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 430 and the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.LJ. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra).

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 02.06.1976 on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner claims to belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on 04.10.2010. In view of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent-Corporation, on 27.11.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner need to be protected in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra). It is stated that the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date on 02.06.1976 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied in view of the judgment of the Full Bench are satisfied in the case of the petitioner. It is stated that the order of the termination may not be given effect to and the respondent-Corporation should consider that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012 and pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner accordingly.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation do not dispute the position of law as laid down in the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra). Shri. Raut, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, states that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the said writ petition was dismissed. It is submitted that this Court may not protect the services of the petitioner in view of dismissal of the previous petition.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench and the order of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. The petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date in the year 1976 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. As rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the conditions that are required to be satisfied in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench are satisfied in case of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to direct the respondent-Corporation not to give effect to the order of termination dated 27.11.2010 and pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner by considering that the petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.05.2012.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. We direct the respondent-Corporation to protect the services of the petitioner till the date of his superannuation and pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent-Corporation that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe, in future. Though the petitioner would be entitled to continuity in service till the date of his retirement, the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period during which the petitioner was out of service, i.e. from the date of the order of termination till the date on which the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Also, the petitioner would not be entitled to retain the promotional benefits if the petitioner was promoted on the basis of his caste claim. The respondent-Corporation should pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner as early as possible and positively within a period of four months.

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