1. No category

wp4160.14.odt
C
ou
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
rt
1
WRIT PETITION NO.4160/2014
Ravindra s/o Mahadeorao Bokade, aged about 44 years, Occupation ­ Assistant Engineer, Grade­II, MHADA, Mumbai Regional Board, Resident of 2A/304, Neighbourhood Lokhandwala Township Kandivli (East), Mumbai. ig
h
PETITIONER :
...Versus...
H
RESPONDENTS: 1. Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority, through its Secretary, Grih Nirman Bhawan, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051. ba
y
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary, Adiwasi Bhawan, Giripeth, Nagpur. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri Hitesh N. Verma, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Advocate for respondent no.2
B
om
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 11.03.2015
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : B.R. GAVAI, J.)
1.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
The petitioner was appointed by the respondent no.1 in the
year 1996. Since the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe, his claim was
forwarded to the respondent no.2 – Scrutiny Committee for verification of
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 08:59:32 :::
wp4160.14.odt
rt
2
respondent no.2 – Scrutiny Committee.
3.
C
ou
his claim. Undisputedly, the said claim is still pending before the
In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been served with the
communication dated 25.6.2014, thereby calling upon him to submit the
validity certificate within a stipulated time. It has been further stated in the
ig
h
communication that in the event the petitioner fails to submit the validity
certificate within the stipulated time, his services would be terminated.
4.
It is not in the hands of the petitioner within how much time
H
the respondent no.2 – Scrutiny Committee will decide the claim of the
petitioner. However, for the inaction on the part of the respondent no.2 –
ba
y
Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner cannot be penalized.
5.
Apart from that prima facie even if the petitioner's claim is
invalidated, he would be entitled to protection of his services inasmuch he
B
om
is appointed in the year 1996, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone...Versus...State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. However, it
is not necessary to go into that issue at this stage inasmuch as the
petitioner's claim is yet to be decided.
6.
In that view of the matter, we pass the following order : (i)
Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned termination
order dated 25.6.2014 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 –
Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible. ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 08:59:32 :::
wp4160.14.odt
rt
3
(ii)
The respondent no.1 is directed not to terminate the
C
ou
services of the present petitioner on the ground of non­submission of the
validity certificate. (iii)
The services of the petitioner are protected till the
decision of the respondent no.2 – Scrutiny Committee on the claim of the
ig
h
petitioner and in the event the decision is adverse to the interest of the
petitioner for a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of
communication of the said decision to the petitioner. to costs.
H
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
ba
y
Wadkar
B
om
JUDGE JUDGE
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 08:59:32 :::