R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

(1) WRIT PETITION NO.3373 OF 2002 :

1. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent-State Bank of India as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 9-9-1985 against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. He was confirmed in the employment on 9-3-1986. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Manager on 1-8-1987, and since then he is continuously working on the said post till this date. The petitioner has completed 32 years of service.

2. The claim of the petitioner was that he belongs to 'Halba/Halbi', Scheduled Tribe category. His claim was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 26-11-2001. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3314 of 2002, which was dismissed on 30-9-2003 and it attained the finality.

3. By this petition, the limited relief of protection in service is claimed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4, (“Milind's case”); State of Maharashtra v. Om Raj, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 488; and Sanjay Madhusudan Punekar v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 300, delivered by the Apex Court; and the decision of the Full Bench delivered by this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457.

4. Recently, the Apex Court, in its decision rendered on 6-7-2017 in Civil Appeal No.8928 of 2015 [Chairman and Managing Director FCI and others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others] [hereinafter referred to as “the said decision”], has overruled the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Arun Sonone's case, as a result of which, the protection provided by the decision of the Full Bench has become unavailable.

5. After noticing the said decision, we asked the Registry of this Court at Nagpur to list all such matters assigned to this Bench up to 2010 claiming protection of service upon invalidation of the caste or tribe claimed either as a main relief or as an alternate relief relying upon the Government Resolutions, Circulars, etc., and the decision of the Apex Court in Milind's case. The office is in the process of preparing such list. However, about 150 matters are listed before us in such category. The members of the Bar were noticed in advance of the disposal of such matters, if possible, on the basis of this recent decision of the Apex Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in several petitions, including Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri S.G. Joshi, Advocate. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court granting protection of service upon invalidation of the caste claim, including the three decisions (i) Om Raj (supra), (ii) Sanjay Madhusudan Punekar (supra), and (iii) Punjab National Bank v. Vilas Bokade and another, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 545, and it is urged that these decisions have not been overruled. It is also urged that this Court has granted protection to hundreds of employees on the basis of these decisions and the decision of the Full Bench in Arun Sonone's case, cited supra, and such protection cannot be denied to the petitioners in all these petitions.

7. In order to consider various contentions raised before us, we are required to first-of-all find out as to whether there is really any scope left for this Court to protect the service or prevent the withdrawal of benefits, as urged before this Court. We would, therefore, like to appreciate the overall impact and consequences of the recent decision of the Apex Court, referred to above.

8. Following the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar and others, reported in (1971) 4 SCR 804; and Dina v. Narayan Singh, reported in 38 ELR 212, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Milind Shardrao Katware v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 1986(1)