JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through, the extant petition, the verdict made by this Court on 22.02.2021, upon, Civil Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2020, titled as Naveen Kumari vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, is attempted to be reviewed.

2. The parental caste of the writ petitioner is “Megh”. She was born in the State of Punjab. In the State of Punjab, “Megh” caste is notified to be a Scheduled Caste. The writ petitioner after solemnising marriage in Himachal Pradesh, hence migrated to the State of H.P., from the State of Punjab. Her husband's caste is also “Megh”, and, it is also notified as a scheduled caste, insofar as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. Consequently, since, the imperative necessity, carried in the latter No. EDN-C-B(15) 10/2012, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner, upon her migration, on her marriage, in Himachal Pradesh, rather becoming barred to avail the apposite facility, for all requisite purposes, and, as appertain to “Megh” caste, though also notified, as a scheduled caste in Himachal Pradesh, rather became declared ultra vires, and, also unconstitutional, through, the verdict under review. However, in view of the verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 4864 of 2021, titled as Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after bearing in mind the verdicts made by the Hon'ble Apex, Court in a case titled as Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, reported in 1990(3) SCC 130, and, also upon its placing reliance, upon, a verdict made in case titled as Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1994(5)SCC 244, besides upon its placing reliance, upon, a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled, as Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, reported in 2018(1) SCC 312, rather thereins i.e. Pankaj Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in relevant para 41 thereof, para whereof stands extracted hereinafter, has made the following expostulations:-

“41. By the judgments of the Constitution Bench of which the reference has been made (supra), it has been settled that the person belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/OBC of the State, on migration to another State voluntarily or involuntarily will not be entitled to claim benefits of reservation including privileges and benefits admissible to the member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBC even though, the caste or tribe of the same nomenclature is notified in the latter State (State where migrated) and if that is being permitted, the very expression as mandated under Articles 341(1) and 342(2) of the Constitution in “relation to the State” would become otiose and this issue remain nor more res integra after the pronouncements made by the Constitution Bench of this Court.”

A reading of the afore extracted paragraph No.41, as, carried in Pankaj Kumar's case (supra), discloses, that therein occur candid echoings, that persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBC of the State, in their respective States of origin, on migrating to another State, voluntarily or involuntarily, will not be entitled to claim benefits of reservation including privileges, and, benefits admissible to the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBC, even though, the caste or tribe, of the same monemclature, is notified in the latter State i.e. migratee State. The afore conclusion has emerged, for ensuring that the expression “in relation to the State” as occurring in Articles 341(1) and 342(2) of the Constitution, is made meaningful, and, also it being not rendered otiose. Therefore, upon, meteing the completest deference to the afore expostulation of law carried, in the above extracted paragraph, as, borne in the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Pankaj Kumar's case (supra), hence prima f