1
2025:CGHC:17188
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 801 of 2019
D. S. Kolhatkar S/o Shri Shravan Kolhatkar Aged About 63 Years R/o LIG 2/16, Near Water Tank, Bardiya Vihar Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Energy Department Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chief Electrical Inspector, H. O. D Building B- Block Second Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Superintending Engineer (Energy Safety Wing) Energy Department, B- Block Second Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board
15/04/2025
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):-
i. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order passed by respondent authorities dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the claim of pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
BINI
PRADEEP
Digitally signed by BINI
PRADEEP
Date:
2025.04.17
17:53:48
+0530
2
ii. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to release the amount of pension along with all the retiral benefits accruing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks along with the interest @ 10% p.a.
iii. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted in favor of the petitioner.
2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner is that, the petitioner was appointed in the services of respondents/establishment on 15.12.1980 under the quota of Scheduled Tribe, as he had caste certificate of 'Halba' caste, though he belongs to 'Koshti' caste. Initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk and superannuated on 30.9.2017 from the post of Office Superintendent. Caste Certificate of 'Halba' community was issued to the petitioner on 25.7.1978, on the strength of which, he was appointed on the aforesaid post. Subsequently, High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee enquired caste of the petitioner and vide Order dated 12.02.2016, invalidated his caste certificate. In view of the above order, on the apprehension of removal from service, the petitioner filed WPS No.930/2016 seeking service protection, which was allowed by the learned Single Bench vide Order dated 16.3.2017 and service protection was granted to him. On the basis of aforesaid order, the petitioner continued in his employment and superannuated on 30.9.2017. Thereafter the respondents/ establishment preferred appeal bearing WA No.168/2018 challenging order dated 16.3.2017, which was allowed by the learned Division Bench vide Order dated 06.12.2018 in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & ors. reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670. It is further contention of the petitioner that, since the caste
3
certificate issued to the petitioner was invalidated by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, representation filed by the petitioner to grant him pensionary benefits was rejected vide impugned Order dated 10.9.2018 (Annexure-P/1), which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition, seeking the relief(s) as stated in the opening paragraph.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to 'Koshti' caste and was issued a caste certificate of 'Halba' caste on 25.7.1978, as 'Halba' Koshti/Halbi Koshti/Koshti were treated under the caste of 'Halba' at the relevant point of time. She would further submit that though High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee vide Order dated 12.02.2016 invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner, but General Administrative Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh itself had issued Circular No.F13- 4/2011/1-3, Raipur dated 01.10.2011, whereby employment of the employees appointed under the category of Scheduled Tribe belongs to 'Halba' Koshti/Halbi Koshti/Koshti castes were protected by the State Government in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4. She would further submit that after passing of the order dated 12.02.2016 by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner was under apprehension that he may be removed from the employment, therefore, he filed WP(S) No.930/2016, wherein vide Order dated 16.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3), service protection was granted to the petitioner and thereafter he was superannuated on 30.9.2017. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner had superannuated during protection granted by the High Court in aforementioned order, therefore, he is entitled to get the pensionary benefits. She would further submit that though vide Order dated 06.12.2018 passed in WA No.168/2018, the learned Division Bench has held that Order dated 16.3.2017 is
4
vulnerable, but, since the petitioner superannuated under the umbrella of order dated 16.3.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in WPS No.930/2016, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get all pensionary benefits and merely because the learned Division Bench has held order dated 16.3.2017 to be vulnerable, the petitioner cannot be deprived from pensionary benefits, as vide Order dated 12.02.2016, the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has not held that said caste certificate was obtained by the petitioner under any falsehood, fabrication, manipulation or concealment. Therefore, she prays that the petition may be allowed and relief as prayed may be granted. To substantiate her argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the matters of RS Mahadev Vs. BR Gopamma and Ors. (2021) SCC Online Kar 15737.
4. State has filed reply. Learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply would submit that the petitioner does not belong to 'Halba' caste, rather he belongs to 'Koshti' caste, as such, he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category and therefore, High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner issued on 25.7.1978. It is further submitted that though vide Order dated 16.3.2017 passed in WPS No.930/2016, learned Single Judge has granted service protection to the petitioner, but that order has been set aside by learned Division Bench vide Order dated 06.12.2018 in WA No.168/2018, therefore, on the strength of doctrine of merger, order passed by learned Single Bench is merged with Order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Division Bench and that order shall govern the field relating to the service condition of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has never been challenged by the petitioner and it has not been set aside by the learned Single Bench while passing
5
order dated 16.3.2017, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been denied grant of pensionary benefits vide Annexure-P/1 (Order dated 10.9.2018) as in the light of order passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and order passed by the learned Division Bench, appointment of the petitioner became ab initio void and nonest, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, he placed reliance in the matters of Kunhayammed and Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. According to the petitioner, he belongs to 'Koshti' caste, but he had obtained caste certificate of 'Halba' caste, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, Halba Koshti/Halbi Koshti/Koshti were treated as 'Halba' caste. The High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee in its order dated 12.02.2016 has not recorded any finding that said caste certificate of 'Halba' was obtained by the petitioner on the strength of any falsehood, fabrication and concealment. The respondents have also not challenged that, the petitioner had obtained that caste certificate on aforesaid ground, ultimately, on the strength of that caste certificate, the petitioner remained in employment till his superannuation. Though vide Order dated 12.02.2016, the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner, but vide Order dated 16.3.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in WPS No.930/2017, service protection was granted to the petitioner in the light of Circular dated 01.10.2011 issued by General Administrative Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, which was issued on the basis of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Milind (Supra). The petitioner superannuated on 30.9.2017 during the period when
6
the order dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure P/3) was in force. Thus, he performed his duty and superannuated under the effect of legal order passed by the High Court. Though vide Order dated 06.12.2018 passed in WA No.168/2018, learned Division Bench has held order dated 16.3.2017 as 'vulnerable' in the teeth of pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra), but that appeal was preferred by the State on 28.02.2018 i.e. after more than 04 months from the date of retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, even after applying the principle of merger, since the petitioner had already retired from the service prior to passing of order by the learned Division Bench, he could not be deprived from getting pensionary benefits. Since facts of the case law referred by the respondents/State, namely Kunhayammed (supra) and R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) are not similar to the facts situation of the present case, as in the instant case, learned Division Bench has passed impugned order after retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner retired during service protection granted to him by the learned Singh Bench, therefore, the case law relied by the State is not supportive to him in the facts-situation of the instant case.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner worked for the respondents/establishment for about 38 years and recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association vs. State of UP and Anr., (2024) 9 SCC 331 and other catena of judgments has held that, pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation and no employee shall be deprived from such right if he is entitled under the relevant rules or scheme. Further, if on the strength of order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and order dated 06.12.2018 passed by
7
learned Division Bench, appointment of the petitioner is held illegal ab initio, then what would be effect of work done by him or any order passed by him under the law. In this regard, it is not the contention of the respondents that all the work done by the petitioner in his official capacity during his employment has been annulled. However, without considering this aspect further more, having considered the fact that the petitioner superannuated well within the protection granted to him by the High Court on the basis of order issued by the State Government and the appeal preferred challenging the order dated 16.3.2017 was filed after superannuation of the petitioner, therefore, on the strength of order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Division Bench and Order passed by High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 12.02.2016, the petitioner cannot be deprived from getting pensionary benefits.
8. In view of the above, I feel inclined to allow the writ petition. Consequently, the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 10.9.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. The respondents/State are directed to release the amount of pension along with all retirement benefits accrued to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order.
Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge
Bini
Comments