RAVINDRA v. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ
Legal Reasoning
8240.24wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 926 WRIT PETITION NO. 8240 OF 2024Farzana Tabssum w/o Late Mohammad Arif,Age- 47 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Khajababa Nagar, Near Bilal Masjid,Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded ….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,General Administration Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32Through its Secretary2.The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Beed,Tq. & Dist. Beed ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr S. C. Yeramwar, Advocate for PetitionerMr B. M. Dhanure, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1Mr S. R. Shirsath, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 16th August, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by the consent of the learned Advocates for the respectivesides. 8240.24wp(2) 2.The Petitioner is a widow, whose husband LateMohammad Arif Ahmed Abdul Aziz. He was an employee ofRespondent No.2/Zilla Parishad, Beed, having been appointed asa ‘Junior Assistant’, vide the order dated 20/09/1997. He wasconfirmed in service vide the order dated 30/01/1999 w.e.f.07/10/1998. By the Government Circular dated 18/05/2013, thedeceased was directed to submit his proposal for verification ofthe tribe claim. 3.The deceased employee approached this Court in WritPetition No.2713/2014, seeking protection of his service with thestatement that, he would never claim any benefits of reservation.This Court [Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala, J. (as His Lordship thenwas) and V. K. Jadhav, J.], delivered an order on 17/11/2014,thereby protecting the service of the deceased employee, on thecondition that, he would not claim any benefits of reservation. Onthis condition, the Zilla Parishad was directed not to take adverseaction against the deceased employee and an entry was directed tobe recorded in the service book that the deceased employee would
Decision
8240.24wp(3) not be taking advantage of any reservation. The Writ Petition wasdisposed off. 4.The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2/ZillaParishad, Beed, relies upon the judgment delivered by theHon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director,Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish BalaramBahira and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670, to contend that thedeceased has fraudulently entered the service on a post reservedfor the Backward Class. When it came to proving his socialstatus, he was asked to submit a validity certificate. Heapproached this Court and this Court protected him by treatinghim from the ‘Open’ category. However, this conclusion runscounter to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inChairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India(supra). 5.It is true that the law laid down in Chairman andManaging Director, Food Corporation of India (supra), wouldindicate that, a person whose claim of belonging to the BackwardClass, on the basis of which he has secured employment, if is not 8240.24wp(4) established, all the service benefits are directed to be taken away.However, in the peculiar facts of this case, since this Courtdelivered an order on 17/11/2014, in favour of the deceasedemployee, protecting his service on the ground that he would notbe treated as belonging to the Backward Class, we cannot take adifferent view, since it would amount to reviewing the orderpassed by the earlier Bench of this Court. So also, the employeehas now passed away.6.Issue is of the family pension to the widow. ThisCourt has delivered a judgment on 12/08/2010 in Writ PetitionNo.3718/1994, filed by Prakash Fulchand Barwal, sincedeceased, through his L.Rs. Smt. Shobhabai Barwal andothers Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein the claimof the bread earner was invalidated by the Committee and hisservice was terminated. He challenged his invalidation with anAppeal before the concerned Appellate Forum, which wasdismissed.7.This Court concluded in Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 inPrakash Fulchand Barwal (supra) as under :- 8240.24wp(5) “"4.During pendency of the writ petition, theoriginal petitioner has died and his legal heirs are broughton record. Since the original petitioner has already died,the question regarding his claim of belonging to scheduledtribe does not arise. The legal heirs of the originalpetitioner have restricted the claim in the present petitiononly for grant of family pension.5.The petitioner was originally appointed on18.07.1988. By virtue of interim order passed in the year1994, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. Theoriginal petitioner has died on 05.12.2003. Considering thedate of appointment of the original petitioner to be11/18.07.1988, the original petitioner has rendered theservice of more than 15 years. As such the petitioner'swidow would be entitled to the family pension. Weaccordingly extend the benefit of family pension to thewidow of the original petitioner i.e. present petitioner No.1-Smt.Shobhabai w/o Prakash Barwal.6.We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition bydirecting the respondents to give the benefits of familypension to the widow of the original petitioner from the dateof his death i.e. 05.12.2003. The said benefit be extended tothe widow of the petitioner namely Smt.Shobhabai w/oPrakash Barwal within a period of six months from todayalong with the arrears. No order as to costs."8.Based on the above conclusions, this Court held thatthe widow would be entitled for the family pension.9.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partlyallowed. Respondent No.2/Chief Executive Officer, ZillaParishad, Beed, shall process the pension papers of the Petitioner, 8240.24wp(6) as expeditiously as possible, for the purpose of releasing arrears offamily pension and payment of regular monthly pension, within aperiod of 45 days from today. Insofar as the gratuity is concerned,Respondent No.2 shall make the calculations under the provisionsof the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and accordingly, release thegratuity to the Petitioner/widow on the basis of the last drawnsalary of the deceased employee, who passed away on06/03/2023, with statutory interest @ 10% p.a. considering thestatutory provisions. Let such arrears and payment of gratuityalong with interest, be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 45days.10.In the event of any dispute as regards the quantum ofgratuity, the Petitioner would be at liberty to approach theappropriate Forum under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 forthe redressal of her grievance.11.Needless to state, in case, any legal heirs of thePetitioner prays for compassionate appointment, he/she shall beduty bound to first produce the validity certificate of belonging tothe ‘Takankar’ Scheduled Tribe category, in the light of the Full 8240.24wp(7) Bench Judgment of this Court delivered on 22/07/2022, in WritPetition No.6750/2022 (Om s/o Bhagwanrao Anjanwad Vs.State of Maharashtra and Another) and a connected WritPetition No.6771/2022, reported in (2022) 4 Mh.L.J. 723.12.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk