Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 106 (BOM)

SUNIL VITHALRAO KUMBHRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010-01-21

S.A.BOBDE, VASANTI A.NAIK

body2010
JUDGMETN S. A. BOBDE, J. ( 1 ) RULE, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to direct the State of maharashtra to enquire into the caste claim made by the respondents 4 to 25 in respect of their entry in the Department and with a further prayer that the caste claim if found to be false, to remove them from service. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are working in the same Department and according to them, they are adversely affected because of the posts occupied by the respondents 4 to 25. ( 4 ) MR. Khubalkar, learned A. G. P. for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the jurisdiction to decide this dispute lies with the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal under the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985. The learned A. G. P. has referred to Section 3 (q) of the Act which defines service matters as follows :-"service matters", in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation (or society)owned or controlled by the government, as respects- (I) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (II) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever; There is no doubt that the dispute is a service matter since it relates to the conditions of service of the respondents 4 to 25 as well as the petitioners. Further Section 15 of the Act confers the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable by all Courts including this Court on the State Administrative Tribunals. ( 5 ) IT is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that merely because the petitioners have prayed for a direction that the caste claim be decided, the matter should be entertained by this Court. In the present case, the issue whether the respondents 4 to 25 belong to a particular caste has been raised by the petitioners with reference to the conditions of service of the respondents 4 to 25. In the present case, the issue whether the respondents 4 to 25 belong to a particular caste has been raised by the petitioners with reference to the conditions of service of the respondents 4 to 25. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it must be held that the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction, power and authority to refer the caste claim of the respondents 4 to 25, if found necessary to the caste Scrutiny Committee in accordance with law. There is no dispute that this Court had the power to do so before the enactment of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. After the enactment, that power vests in the Maharashtra administrative Tribunals since that power is involved in a service matter. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. Rule discharged. Ordered accordingly.