JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 921, AIR 2012 SC 3016 and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 457. 2. The petitioner was admittedly appointed in the year 1978 as a Clerk in the respondent-bank, on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner claimed to belong to Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. The respondent-bank asked the petitioner to submit his caste validity certificate but the petitioner neither furnished his caste certificate nor did he tender the caste validity certificate to the respondent-bank and hence the respondent-bank, after conducting an enquiry against the petitioner, terminated his services in the year 2002. The petitioner challenged the order of termination before the CGIT but did not succeed. A writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of CGIT was also dismissed. The petitioner submitted the caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee for verification in the year 2008 and the Scrutiny Committee, by the order dated 23-9-2010 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. It was held by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner appears to be Teli by caste and not Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee but the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed a review application seeking a review of the order in Writ Petition. While disposing of the review application, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a substantive writ petition seeking the protection of his services on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra and others (cited supra). The present petition has been filed in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner. 3. The present petition has been filed in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner. 3. Shri Narnaware, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra and others and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others as the petitioner was appointed before the cutoff date i.e. in the year 1978 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated as in certain documents of the cousins of the petitioner, the caste was recorded as Teli in the caste column. It is stated that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection in terms of the judgment of the full bench stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner. 4. Shri Anilkumar, the learned Counsel for the respondent-bank opposes the prayer made by the petitioner. It is stated that the services of the petitioner need not be protected. It is stated that though the bank had asked the petitioner to tender the original caste certificate and get the caste claim verified from the Scrutiny Committee on a number of occasions, the petitioner had refused to do so and the caste claim of the petitioner was not sent for verification till his services were terminated in the year 2002. It is stated that the petitioner was unsuccessful before the CGIT and also in the writ petition challenging the order of the CGIT. It is stated that after all the attempts of the petitioner failed, the petitioner submitted his caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. It is stated that it is observed by the Scrutiny Committee in para 2 of the order dated 23-9-2010 that the petitioner had not cooperated with the Committee and had not submitted the original caste certificate and affidavit in Form-A. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner's services cannot be protected. 5. It is stated that it is observed by the Scrutiny Committee in para 2 of the order dated 23-9-2010 that the petitioner had not cooperated with the Committee and had not submitted the original caste certificate and affidavit in Form-A. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner's services cannot be protected. 5. Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute the position of law, as laid down in the full bench judgment in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others (cited supra). It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case. 6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking protection of services stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed before the cutoff date in the year 1978 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's caste claim was invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents and affinity test. There is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fabricated the documents or interpolated them while seeking the benefits meant for the Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of any adverse observation to that effect, the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. 7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent-bank is directed to treat the petitioner as having retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the normal course on 1-7-2014. The petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period during which he was out of service, i.e. from 2002 till the date of his superannuation. The petitioner would not be entitled to any increments or any other benefits that could have been normally granted to the petitioner, had he not been terminated. The petitioner is however entitled to continuity in service. The retiral benefits, if not paid as yet, be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.