JUDGMENT : (PER NARESH PATIL, J.) In these two petitions, identical question is involved as to whether a migrant from the State of Maharashtra to Union Territory of Daman and Diu would be entitled to claim the same caste status as was available to him in the State of Maharashtra. The question raised being identical in both petitions, we are disposing of these petitions finally by this common judgment and order. 2. W.P.No.502/2002 has been filed by one Mr.V.N.Kotiya who was employed as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department in the administration of Daman and Diu. W.P.No.3891/2003 has been filed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu. Briefly stated, the facts are summarized as under: 3. The petitioner Kotiya contends that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department of the administration of Daman and Diu. Prior thereto, he was working as Incharge Assistant Engineer under the order passed on 1st October 1997. The respondent No.4 Milind R. Ingle was also working as Junior Engineer in the same department of the administration of Daman and Diu. A final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Elect.) was issued under the circular dated 25th July 1992 by the office of the Collector, Moti Daman. It is contended that respondent No.4 belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Mahar) from the State of Maharashtra. The said caste is mentioned at serial No.37 in the list of scheduled castes in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.4 was issued caste certificate on 7th February 1989 by the Executive Magistrate, Yawatmal. According to the petitioner, Respondent No.4 is native of Yawatmal district of the State of Maharashtra. 4. It is further contended that respondent No.4 filed Original Application No.683/1991 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai (“Tribunal” for short) claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Elect.) in the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 1st June 1995. As the order passed by the Tribunal was not complied with, respondent No.4 filed contempt petition bearing No.72/1996. The contempt petition came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 22nd June 1998. The petitioner has annexed both these orders to the petition. Respondent No.4Ingle thereafter filed Original Application bearing No.802/1996 which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 30th March 2001. The contempt petition came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 22nd June 1998. The petitioner has annexed both these orders to the petition. Respondent No.4Ingle thereafter filed Original Application bearing No.802/1996 which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 30th March 2001. It is contended by the petitioner that the Tribunal erroneously held that respondent No.4 must be held to be eligible for being considered against the scheduled caste quota in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The Tribunal directed respondents therein to consider present respondent No.4 for promotion accordingly. A meeting of the departmental promotion committee was convened on 1st November 2001 wherein the Committee recommended promotion to respondent No.4 to the post of the Assistant Commissioner (Elect) (Group-B) (Gazetted). The Union Territory issued orders accordingly. The petitioner contends that posting of respondent No.4 as Assistant Engineer (Elect) in Diu was made against the post of which the petitioner was holding charge as per order dated 17th April 2000. According to the petitionerKotiya, instead of giving him regular promotion, respondent No.4 was promoted. 5. The petitioner in W.P.No.3891/2003 is the Administrator of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The Administrator has also questioned the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.802/1996 dated 30th March 2000. The petitioner stated that the Tribunal erred in law by imposing the circulars issued by the Government of Dadra and Nagar Haveli on the Government of Daman and Diu administration. The Union Territory of Daman and Diu was separated from the erstwhile Government of Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and was separate Union Territory since 1987. It is contended that by directing the Union Territory to consider respondent No.4 for promotion, the Tribunal has virtually accepted respondent No.4 Ingle as Scheduled Caste within the Territory of Daman and Diu. The direction issued by the Tribunal are contrary and inconsistent to the Constitution and statutory provisions. 6. The respondent No.4 Ingle appeared in these petitions and filed affidavitinreply and additional affidavit. On behalf of Union Territory of Daman and Diu affidavit was filed in W.P.No.502/2002. In the affidavitinreply filed by respondent No.4 Ingle, he has taken a stand that no separate rules have been framed by the Union Territory of Daman and Diu in respect of acceptance of caste status of migrants in the Union Territory. On behalf of Union Territory of Daman and Diu affidavit was filed in W.P.No.502/2002. In the affidavitinreply filed by respondent No.4 Ingle, he has taken a stand that no separate rules have been framed by the Union Territory of Daman and Diu in respect of acceptance of caste status of migrants in the Union Territory. According to respondent No.4, he belongs to the scheduled caste. He was the only person to be eligible for promotion from the scheduled caste in the Union Territory. He, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to be promoted. It is contended by respondent No.4 that Union Territory of Daman and Diu was governed by the Central Government and the rules, circulars, instructions issued by it were applicable to the Union Territory. No distinction could be made between the persons belonging to other States for the purpose of employment in the union territory. The respondent No.4 was appointed in the erstwhile Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu in the year 1983 and, therefore, the reservation policy continues to be applicable to all the union territories including Union Territory of Daman and Diu even after reorganization of the State. It is contended that the caste “Mahar” is also recognized as scheduled caste in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. 7. Shri Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.502/2002 submitted that the service recruitment in the Electricity Department was not done on all India basis. The petitionerKotiya was senior amongst all, in the cadre of Junior Engineers in the Electricity Department. At no point of time, the Central Government had directed the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu to accept the caste status of migrants for the purpose of service benefits. It is submitted that, admittedly, respondent No.4 Ingle was migrant from the State of Maharashtra to the union territory. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Marri Chandra v. Dean, S.G.S.Medical College, (1990) 14 ATC 671 and Action Committee on issue of caste certificate to SC & ST v. Union of India 1994 (2) ATC 660 is applicable to the facts of the case. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Marri Chandra v. Dean, S.G.S.Medical College, (1990) 14 ATC 671 and Action Committee on issue of caste certificate to SC & ST v. Union of India 1994 (2) ATC 660 is applicable to the facts of the case. In the facts of the case, learned counsel submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Pushpa v. Sivachanmugavelu, (2005) 3 SCC 1 cannot be made applicable as the said case relate to the appointment in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. 8. Shri Walia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4Ingle submitted that the petition filed by the petitionerKotiya is not maintainable in this Court as the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Tribunal. In the submission of the learned counsel, that the Tribunal has upheld the contentions of respondent No.4 in correct, reasonable and proper manner. The administration of Daman and Diu did not frame any policy in respect of caste status of the migrants, therefore, the policy followed and implemented by the Central Government in this regard ought to have been followed by the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. Respondent No.4 was the sole candidate belonging to scheduled caste working as Junior Engineer in the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu did not raise any protest to the circulars issued by the Central Government in respect of the subject matter. The petitioner had taken voluntary retirement in the year 2007. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.4 was promoted in the year 2001 and, therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned orders and the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of service benefits in his favour is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel further submitted that for securing employment with the Central Government a person having a caste status in the State of origin could compete. Therefore, there shall not be any difficulty in accepting the same proposition for securing employment, by the person belonging to the reserved caste, with the union territory. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that for securing employment with the Central Government a person having a caste status in the State of origin could compete. Therefore, there shall not be any difficulty in accepting the same proposition for securing employment, by the person belonging to the reserved caste, with the union territory. 9. The learned counsel appearing for Union Territory of Daman and Diu submitted that at no point of time administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu accepted the migrants' caste status. The Tribunal erred in directing the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu to consider respondent No.4 for promotion. Learned counsel further submitted that the circulars, notifications, instructions issued by the Central Government are not addressed specifically to the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Pushpa (supra) is applicable to the administration of Union Territory of Pondicherry. As the respondent4 is a scheduled caste person in State of Maharashtra and a migrant he is not entitled to claim caste status in the service cadre of the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties placed reliance on caselaws which we have referred as under: 11. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra (supra); Action Committee on issue of caste certificate to SC & ST (supra); the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Santala Lal v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 904 . In Marri Chandra (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: “10. … Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra in the instant case, do require protection in the State of Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic approach to the problem” In Action Committee on issue of caste certificate to SC & ST (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: “16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally nonest in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to a question by Mr.Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under: "He asked me another question and it was this. That is why in answer to a question by Mr.Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under: "He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal? It is a difficult question on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Schedule Tribe outside the scheduled area or tribal area wold certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I an see, it will be practically impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which are covered by them.” The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Santala Lal (supra) held as under: “18. A person does not cease to belong to his caste/tribe on migration to an area more advanced with a more liberal atmosphere. The long residence in such State of migration could result in the handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community being tempered down. While enacting Articles 341 and 342, the Constitution Fathers did note these aspects. Firstly, by limiting it initially for a timeframe with the hope and expectation that education and socioeconomic justice would result in these communities becoming socially and economically forward. At the same time, the Constitution Fathers in relation to the State also noted that benefits must go to those socially and economically disadvantaged in the geographical area of that State. Considering the tribes and castes notified by the Presidential Orders, all such castes and tribes would be getting benefits of reservation in the State of their origin. The Court in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao also noted where there may be cases of persons migrating individually for the purpose of employment, etc. but having construed Article 342, the Court left it to the wisdom of Parliament to provide benefits in the State of migration.” 12. The Court in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao also noted where there may be cases of persons migrating individually for the purpose of employment, etc. but having construed Article 342, the Court left it to the wisdom of Parliament to provide benefits in the State of migration.” 12. The respondent No.4 relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Pushpa (supra); Kendriya Vidyalala Sanghatan v. Subhas Sharma, (2002) 4 SCC 145 ; judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maheshchand Boopsingh v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission, 2006 (5) ALL MR 126; Shaikh Jabbar Abbas v. Union of India, 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 543 ; and that of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. B.R.Ambedkar Memorial Fund, IV 2007 (1) AISLJ 449. The Apex Court in the case of S.Pushpa (supra) observed : “15. The Central Government has issued several orders and circulars extending the benefit to SC candidates of other States in the matter of employment in the UT of Pondicherry which need to be noticed. A DO letter was sent by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to the Lt Governor of Pondicherry on 1974 and the same is being reproduced below : "So far as reservations for SCs/STs candidates in posts/services under the Central Government are concerned, the concession is admissible to all SCs and STs which have been recognized as such under the orders issued from time to time irrespective of the State/Union Territory in relation to which particular castes or tribes have been recognized as SCs/Tribes. Thus for a reserved vacancy in a Central Govt. office located in a State, any SC candidate throughout the country would be eligible. Since Pondicherry is a Union Territory all orders regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes/Tribes issued by the Department of Personnel in respect of posts/services under the Central Government are applicable to posts/services under the Pondicherry Administration. Also as such a SC/Tribe candidate from outside Pondicherry should also be eligible for a vacancy reserved for SCs/STs in the Union Territory Administration." 15.3 It appears that Government of Pondicherry sought some clarifications from the Central Government regarding admissibility of reservation benefit to migrant SC/ST candidates vide their letter dated 21.9.1995. Also as such a SC/Tribe candidate from outside Pondicherry should also be eligible for a vacancy reserved for SCs/STs in the Union Territory Administration." 15.3 It appears that Government of Pondicherry sought some clarifications from the Central Government regarding admissibility of reservation benefit to migrant SC/ST candidates vide their letter dated 21.9.1995. This was replied to by the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India vide their letter dated 6.10.1995 and the relevant part thereof is reproduced below: "I am directed to refer to your letter No. A.27265/12/23/CS(EC)/95 dated 21-9-1995 on the above subject and to say that according to para 9 of MHA (Now DoPT) OM No. 42/21/49NGS dated 23-1-1952, the Central Government instructions apply mutatis mutandis to all Part C States (now UTs) as well. Such UTs have therefore to follow all Central Government instructions. In view of the above position explained above, Pondicherry being UT, services under the Administration will be open to all the SCs/STs irrespective of their State of origin. Further in regard to posts filled on allIndia basis through UPSC or SSC on open competition basis, SC/ST candidates irrespective of their state of origin can apply. In regard to the posts filled through SSC, Madras all the SC/ST candidates from the southern region will be eligible to apply. “ In the case of Maheshchand Boopsingh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed: “8. As we have held that the selection process was according to law, the next issue is whether the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as he did not belong to a Scheduled Caste notified for the State of Maharashtra. Employment in Respondent No.1 is employment in the Central Government organisation. Normally all citizen should be eligible to apply unless there are rules of the country. In the instant case the rules required the selection to be done in terms of Central Government directives. Even though, the procedure to be followed is appointment on a local basis, yet all eligible persons amongst notified Scheduled Castes must be considered. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 13th September, 1950, which set out that insofar as the employment in a Central Government undertaking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the State could be considered. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 13th September, 1950, which set out that insofar as the employment in a Central Government undertaking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the State could be considered. Further there is subsequent notification dated 18/31st August, 1992, which reads as under: "3. It is clarified that above instructions are applicable only for the State Government services, admissible in State Government's educational institutions, etc All Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are treated alike for jobs in the Central Government. In view of this clarification, SC/ST persons employed in Central Government services in the States/Union Territories are entitled to get the benefits admissible to them. Since Department of Telecommunications is Central Government, the benefits admissible to SC/ST persons under the Central Government should continue to be extended to SC/ST person in the Department to those also who have migrated from the State of their origin to another State." From this paragraph, it would be clear that not only SC/ST of the State are to be considered, but, SC/ST from other States also are to be considered, bearing in mind that employment is in the Central Government and or Central Government Undertakings. The Supreme Court in the case of S.Pushpa & Ors. Vs. Sivachanmugavelu & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1038, in case of recruitment in Union Territory of Pondicherry has held that considering Pondicherry to be Union Territory, administered by President, the employment to the post in the administration of the said Territory would be available to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes not only from the Territory, but, also for the Scheduled Castes from other States and Union Territories' in the country. In our opinion, considering that these are appointments to a post in the Government of India or a Government organisation, it is not possible to restrict employment to Scheduled Castes of only those States where the establishment is located, unless there are rules which would be constitutionally permissible. It is in these circumstances, the Government recognising the constitutional imperative in August, 1992 issued clarification, that make employment available to all Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from the other States also. It is in these circumstances, the Government recognising the constitutional imperative in August, 1992 issued clarification, that make employment available to all Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from the other States also. At the highest when recruitment is being done on local basis all that is required is that the candidate's name is on the list of the local employment exchange. In the event the local employment exchange does not forward their names as per rules, the names are also to be called from Scheduled Castes organisations in that State from the records maintained by them. This has been done in the instant case. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of B.R.Ambedkar Memorial Fund (supra) held as under: “4. The short question in this case is that whether a person who has obtained an SC/ST certificate from some State migrates to the Union Territory of Delhi is entitled to the benefit of the notifications dated 21.8.2003 and 27.8.2003 and whether those notifications are valid. 5. When a person who gets an SC/ST certificate from State 'A' migrates to State 'B' he no doubt will not get the benefit of the SC/ST certificate from State 'A' and he will have to obtain another SC/ST certificate from State 'B'. The legal position is, however, different when a person who has got an SC/ST certificate from State 'A' migrates to a Union Territory. This matter is now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Pushpa and Others v. Sivachanmugavelu and Others, 2005(2) SLJ 347 (SC) = 2005 III AD(S.C.) 13 = (2005) 3 SCC 1 . … … … … … … 7. Following the said decision, we are of the opinion that the matter is now no longer rest integra.” 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 14 SCC 710; State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 794 ; judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jesudas A. Thambuswamy v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 802 . He also relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra (supra); Action Committee on issue of caste certificate to SC & ST (supra). In Jesudas A. Thambuswamy (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: “18. The law, therefore, as now settled by the Constitution Bench judgments is that to be eligible for benefits for reservation, a person must be ordinary resident in that State on the date of the Presidential Notification notifying the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe under Articles 341 and 342 respectively. Any other person who migrates to that State after that date and who incidentally would be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person having the same nomenclature of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe notified for the State would not be eligible for reservation in the State of Maharashtra, but would be entitled to reservation in the State of origin.” The Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra) has observed as under: “14. The matter again came up for consideration before a two Judge Bench in State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh (2010) 12 SCC 794 :. The two Judge Bench did not approve the approach adopted by another two Judge bench in Subhash Chandra’s case and referred the matter to larger Bench by making the following observations: “12. In our view, a two Judge Bench of this Court could not have held the decision rendered by a three Judge Bench in S. Pushpa case to be obiter and per incuriam. 13. A very important question of law as to interpretation of Articles 16(4), 341 and 342 arises for consideration in this appeal. Whether Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution has any bearing on the State’s action in making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State? The extent and nature of interplay and interaction among Articles 16(4), 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is required to be resolved. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, in our view, it would be appropriate that this case is placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a Bench of appropriate strength. The extent and nature of interplay and interaction among Articles 16(4), 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is required to be resolved. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, in our view, it would be appropriate that this case is placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a Bench of appropriate strength. The registry is, accordingly, directed to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.” 15. The question arising in this appeal is whether a person like the appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she was born will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation after marriage in the State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular Caste falls in the same reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent resident of that State. 16. Since the other related matter has been referred to a larger Bench, we think that it would be just and proper to refer this matter also to the larger Bench. Ordered accordingly.” In the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: “12. In our view, a twoJudge Bench of this Court could not have held the decision rendered by a threeJudge Bench in S.Pushpa case to be obiter and per incuriam.” 14. We have perused the record placed before us, the judgments cited supra and considered the submissions advanced. 15. In the judgments cited supra, while interpreting the previsions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India the principle of law has been laid down that a person who is of scheduled caste or tribe is entitle to the benefit of reservation in the State of origin. On migration from one State to another, such a person is not entitled to that benefit as was available to him/her in the State of origin. 16. It is a settled position that even in respect of a person who belongs to the caste notified in the State of origin though having the same nomenclature notified in the State of migration, yet such migrant would not be entitled to reservation in the State of migration. Such a person would continue to get the benefit only in the State of origin. 17. Such a person would continue to get the benefit only in the State of origin. 17. The question in this case is that whether the above stated principle applies to the case of a migrant who is employed in the service of the Central Government or the Union Territory. 18. The Union Territory of Daman and Diu was part of Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. The Parliament passed an enactment for reorganization of Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu viz., Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987. Under the said enactment on and from the appointed date, a new State to be known as State of Goa and Union Territory of Daman and Diu were formed. The respondent No.4 was the employee in the service of Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu since the year 1983 i.e. much prior to the passing of the Reorganization Act. Respondent No.4 is the migrant from the State of Maharashtra. The Executive Magistrate has issued caste certificate in his favour. After reorganization, respondent No.4 and the petitioner preferred to serve administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. 19. On behalf of administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu it is submitted that at no point of time the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu had accepted the caste status of migrants in the service of union territory. Whatever circulars, notifications and instructions issued by the Central Government are not applicable to them. For appreciating this vital submissions, we may refer to some of the documents placed on record of W.P.No.502/2002. Exh.J is the communication dated 29th September 1992 made by B.N.Sriwastava, Director, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India to Shri Ramesh Chandra, Assistant Secretary to the Administrator, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvasa which reads as under: “Subject: Clarifications on the letter No.BC.16014/1/82SC& SCD.I dated 6.8.84. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.A.86/ 92ADM dated 30.8.92, on the subject and to say that in respect of employment under Central Government there is no discrimination between Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes of one State or another. In respect of employment under Union Territories also legally, the position would be the same. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.A.86/ 92ADM dated 30.8.92, on the subject and to say that in respect of employment under Central Government there is no discrimination between Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes of one State or another. In respect of employment under Union Territories also legally, the position would be the same. Thus, in the case under reference, a recognized Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of Maharashtra or any other State/Union Territory would be entitled to the benefits and facilities provided for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the services under the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. In this connection, the Administration may kindly refer to their letter No.ADM/EST/C/4408/1978, dated 4.3.1978 and Ministry of Home Affairs lr.No.12015/3/77SCT. I dated 20.7.1978.” 20. Exh.L is the circular dated 10th July 1995 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Personnel), Administrator's Office, Dadra and Nagar Haveli which reads as under: “C I R C U L A R Attention is invited to Para 2 of the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi's letter No.BC/16014/1/87SC & ST CD 1 dated 6th August, 1984 wherein it is clarified that the Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons on migration from the State of his origin to other State will not lose his status as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe but he will be entitled to the concessions/benefits admissible to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes from the State of his origin and from the State where he has migrated. The Administration has adopted the Central procedure of reservation of vacancies in Govt. Offices for SC/ST candidates under which the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from any part of India who has migrated to U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli could derive the benefit. However from the year 1990 the U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administration has stopped allowing benefits of reservation in state to the Scs/STs who have migrated from other parts of India. Now, after careful consideration, a policy on the line of Goa Government, to allow all the benefits of reservations to the SC/ST employees who migrated from other States/U.T.s of India has been formulated and it has been now ordered by the Administrator, Daman and Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli that the migrant SC/ST Employee who had already been appointed prior to 01.01.1990 will continue to enjoy all the benefits of the reservations as provided in the Rules. The Policy regarding reservations to SC/ST migrants on direct Recruitment under the UT of D & NH Administration will be decided separately.” 21. From the record placed before us and the submissions advanced on behalf of the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu, it reveals that at no point of time the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu had adopted the policy of its own in respect of acceptance or otherwise of the status of the migrants or intimated the Central Government that the circulars issued by the Central Government and the policy statements according to the instructions given by the Central Government to the union territories are not acceptable to them. The administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu being under the control and supervision of the Central Government shall have to follow instructions given by the Central Government unless it frames policies of its own on the subject matter. In the affidavit filed by Sanjeev Mittal, Deputy Secretary (Personnel), Administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu, a stand was adopted that the circulars issued by the Central Government were not circulated to the Heads of Offices in Daman and Diu and were not implemented in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The deponent has referred to the instructions received from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide their letter dated 9th April 2001 which are reproduced as under: “Where a person belonging to SC/ST in the State of his origin has migrated to another State after the date of notification of Scs/Sts in respect of the State to which he has migrated, he will not be entitled to carry the benefits and privileges of being a member of SC/ST in the migrated State even if the same caste/tribe is included in the notification issued in respect of that State/UT.” In para 7 of the affidavit, the deponent contends that the Government of India has notified a separate list of SC/ST for Daman and Diu (UT) as in the case of other States, so any relaxation and concessions of reservation to migrant SC/ST will be at the cost of the original resident SC/ST of the union territory. Under the presidential order caste “Mahar” was included in the schedule of Schedule Caste as applicable in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The respondent No.4Ingle belongs to scheduled caste (Mahar). 22. Under the presidential order caste “Mahar” was included in the schedule of Schedule Caste as applicable in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The respondent No.4Ingle belongs to scheduled caste (Mahar). 22. The Union Territory of Daman and Diu filed an affidavit through P.J.Bamania, Deputy Secretary (Personnel), Administration of Daman and Diu (UT). In para6 of the affidavit, the deponent has stated as under: “6. It is true that this Administration has not framed any separate rules regarding reservation and continue to implement the reservation policy framed by Government of India before delinking as well as after delinking as permissible in law” 23. The respondent No.4 has referred to the notification dated 28th October 1980 published in the official gazette issued by the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu which has a saving clause: “7. Saving. Nothing in these rules shall affect reservations, relaxation of agelimit and other concessions required to be provided for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other special category of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard.” 24. In case of S.Pushpa (supra), it was observed by the Apex Court that the Central Government had issued several orders and circulars extending the benefits to the Schedule Caste candidates of other States in the matter of employment in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. In view of the Apex Court, the union territories are administered by the President through the Administrator appointed by him. In the context of Article 246 of the Constitution, the union territories are excluded from the ambit of expression “State” occuring therein. This was clearly explained by a Constitution Bench of Apex Court in T.M.Kanniyan v. Income Tax Officer, (1968) 68 ITR 244 (SC) and in New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 2847 it was observed by the Apex Court that the union territories are not States for the purpose of Part XI of the Constitution. 25. In case of Pondicherry, Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 was issued by the President. 25. In case of Pondicherry, Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 was issued by the President. In the case of S.Pushpa (supra), the Apex Court further observed that if a State or Union territory makes a provision whereunder the benefit of reservation is extended only to such Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which are recognized as such, in relation to that State or Union territory then such a provision would be perfectly valid. However, there would be no infraction of clause (4) of Article 16, if a Union territory by virtue of its peculiar position being governed by the President as laid down in Article 239 extends the benefit of reservation even to such migrant Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who are not mentioned in the schedule to the Presidential Order issued for such Union territory. It was further observed that the Union Territory of Pondicherry had adopted the policy of Central Government. 26. The learned counsel appearing for the administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu submitted that in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh (supra), the Apex Court had opined that the two Judge Bench of the Apex Court had declared the view expressed by three Judge Bench in the case of S.Pushpa (supra) as per incuriam. The matter again came up before the two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra) wherein the two Judge Bench referred the matter to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a bench of appropriate strength. Learned counsel submits that the said reference is still pending. 27. We may refer to the view adopted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. B.R.Ambedkar Memorial Fund (supra) wherein by referring to the judgment in S.Pushpa (supra) it was observed by the Division Bench that the matter was no longer res integra. 28. Considering the aforementioned legal position and the record placed before this Court, we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioners. However, the subsequent developments are also to be taken in to consideration. The petitionerKotiya has already availed the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2007 whereas respondent No.4 Ingle is still in service. 28. Considering the aforementioned legal position and the record placed before this Court, we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioners. However, the subsequent developments are also to be taken in to consideration. The petitionerKotiya has already availed the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2007 whereas respondent No.4 Ingle is still in service. In the facts of the case, we do not find that unsettling the position of service benefits derived by the parties at this stage would be reasonable and proper. 29. In the facts of the case and legal principles evolved so far, we do not find that the Tribunal committed any grave error. For the aforementioned reasons we are of the view that no interference by this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is warranted. Both petitions are dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.