Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
All Indian Adivasi Employees Federation - Petitioner
Versus
The Reserve Bank of India, & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2004, 258 of 2014, 6740 of 2016 & Contempt Petition Nos. 236 of 2016, 238 of 2016, 34 of 2014
Decided On : 13-04-2018
For the Petitioner:S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with R.M. Bhangde, C.S. Samudra, S.A. Chaudhari, M. Chandurakr, S.B. Wahane, A.A. Naik, M. Shareef, M.D. Lakhey, Advocates, T. Khan, A.G.P.
The employees who have given up their caste claim cannot continue in employment as per the subsequent judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES, DE-NOTIFIED TRIBES (VIMUKTA JATIS), NOMADIC TRIBES, OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES AND SPECIAL BACKWARD CATEGORY (REGULATION OF ISSUANCE AND VERIFICATION OF) CASTE CERTIFICATES ACT, 2000 - [SUBJECT] - SECTION 6 - [ACT SECTION LIST] - THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR CASTE CLAIM, AND HENCE THE SAME HAS NEVER BEEN SUBJECT TO CASTE VERIFICATION BY THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FUNCTIONING UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE MAHARASHTRA SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES, DE-NOTIFIED TRIBES (VIMUKTA JATIS), NOMADIC TRIBES, OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES AND SPECIAL BACKWARD CATEGORY (REGULATION OF ISSUANCE AND VERIFICATION OF) CASTE CERTIFICATES ACT, 2000 (MAHARASHTRA ACT NO. 23 OF 2001), CAN CONTINUE IN EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DATED 01.11.2012 IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 5198/2009, 2126/2010 AND 1512/2004. [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions were filed by employees who had given up their caste claim and were continued in employment on the basis of protection granted by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court. The petitioners contended that the employees who have given up their caste claim cannot continue in employment as per the subsequent judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The respondents contended that the Division Bench judgment was binding on all and the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the same.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the employees who have given up their caste claim cannot continue in employment as per the subsequent judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The High Court further held that the Division Bench judgment was not binding on all and the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the same.
Issues: 1. Whether the employees who have given up their caste claim can continue in employment? 2. Whether the Division Bench judgment was binding on all? 3. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the Division Bench judgment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The employees who have given up their caste claim cannot continue in employment as per the subsequent judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court. 2. The Division Bench judgment was not binding on all. 3. The petitioners had locus standi to challenge the Division Bench judgment.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed and set aside the order of promotion dated 7.10.2016 in Writ Petition No.6740/2016 issued by Respondent No.5 Food Corporation of India therein. The High Court also directed Respondents 1 to 3 in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2004 and Respondents 1 to 3 in Writ Petition No. 258 of 2014 to initiate necessary steps within next two months to discontinue and terminate the “void” recruitment of all those on its roll who have given up their castes and continuing in service on the basis of “protection”. The High Court further directed the Food Corporation of India or the Reserve Bank of India to forthwith discontinue and not release any payments or dues to the Respondent employees before this Court who have given up their castes and were/are still continued by them. The High Court also directed the Food Corporation of India or the Reserve Bank of India to initiate necessary steps within next two months to recover payments or dues released, from to the Respondent employees before this Court who have given up caste claim.
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Facts in detail are not necessary. Question involved in all these matters is – Whether the employees who have given up their caste claim, and hence the same has never been subject to caste verification by the Scrutiny Committee functioning under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001), can continue in employment because of Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 01.11.2012 in Writ Petition Nos. 5198/2009, 2126/2010 and 1512/2004. It is not in dispute that Writ Petition No. 5162/2004, was also to be decided along with these three Writ petitions, but, then has not been decided and is being considered by us now.
2. In Writ Petition No. 5198/2009, there were total 25 petitioners and first petitioner is one A.P. Ramtekkar. The judgment has been reported in his name as (2013) 2 Mah.L.J. 419A. P. Ramtekkar v. Union of India and while arguing, the respective Counsel have referred to this judgment, as judgment in case of Shri A.P. Ramtekkar. Employer of these 25 petitioners was/is Food Corporation of India.
3. Writ Petition No. 2126/2010, was filed by 33 petitioners and Food Corporation of India was their employer. Writ Petition No.1512/2004 is by Reserve Bank of India Employees Association and their employer was Reserve Bank of India. In Writ Petition No.1512/2004, apart from the employees Association, Reserve Bank of India Halba Karmachari Sanstha was petitioner no.2 and Reserve Bank Scheduled Tribe Employees Joint Action Committee was petitioner no.3. There are 5 individual employees as petitioners at Sr. Nos. 5 to 8.
4. Division Bench in A.P. Ramtekkar held that all Halba Koshti whose appointment had become final on 28.11.2000, are entitled to protection of their services as held in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 (State of Maharashtra vrs. Milind Katware and others). It found that Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2008, issued by the Union of India was also on same lines. In paragraph no.14, this Division Bench found insistence of employer and its compelling petitioners before it to get the caste certificate verified by the scrutiny committee under the 2001 Act, unjustified as they had already given up their caste claim, and as such verification would be an empty formality. In Writ Petition No. 1512/2004, three associations were also the petitioners but, petition at their instance was dismissed observing that employee in position to agitate his individual claim must do so. Therefore, only grievance of petitioner nos. 4 to 8 was entertained in that matter. Again identical relief was given to petitioners no.4 to 8. Benefits secured by them after 28.11.2000 on the basis of their status as Scheduled Tribe were allowed to be withdrawn and that liberty was given to employer. It was thus, open for the employer to restore their position as on 28.11.2000.
5. It appears that Special Leave Petition filed by the Food Corporation of India vide Special Leave Petition Nos. 11831-11832 of 2013 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.04.2013. Review Petitions (Civil) Nos. 497, 498 of 2014 were also dismissed on 26.02.2014.
6. It is in this background that we have heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for employer–Reserve Bank of India, Shri C.S. Samudra, learned counsel for Food Corporation of India, Shri S.A. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for Union of India. Shri A.A. Naik, Shri M.Shareef and Shri M.D. Lakhey, learned Counsel have argued the cases of individual employees arrayed as respondents.
7. Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel submits that petitioners represent the cause of genuine tribals and open category employees, who have suffered because of wrongful employment procured by playing fraud by individuals. He states that abo
