Mangala Shankarrao Sonwane v. The Zilla Parishad, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Gondia And 4 Others

3003wp5597.13 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5597 OF 2013 (Mangala Shankarrao Sonwane vs. The Zilla Parishad, Gondia and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri M.G. Burde, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.

Ms. H.N. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.3 and 4.

----------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 30, 2016 Civil Application No.614/2016 is taken up for early hearing.

It appears that earlier petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 351/2011 contending hat her caste claim was under verification since 2003. This Court, therefore, expedited its consideration.

However, it appears that caste claim of petitioner was already invalidated on 12/8/2004, but neither petitioner nor her employer was aware of it. As the caste validity was not submitted, services of petitioner were terminated on 15/11/2010 itself.

In this situation, petitioner has questioned that order of termination in the present petition filed on 7/10/2013. It is pointed out that petitioner was permitted

3003wp5597.13 2/2 to make a representation and accordingly representation has been made to employer and that representation is still pending.

Adv. Kapgate, who appears for employer, submits that representation was made by the petitioner to Caste Scrutiny Committee only.

We do not wish to go into merits of the controversy. The controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457). If petitioner is entitled to protection of employment, the same needs to be looked into in accordance with law laid down therein. The petitioner has joined employment on 25/2/2003 and put in about 8 years of service before her termination. In this situation, without observing anything on merits of the controversy, we direct petitioner to make an appropriate representation within a period of six weeks from today to employer. If such representation is made, employer shall look into it within next three months independently and uninfluenced by these observations.

With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the petition. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE khj