1 wp2355.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2355 OF 2009 Venkat s/o Narayan Suryawanshi Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents -------- Shri S.V. Mundhe, , Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for the Respondents -------- Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre & Shri M.T. Joshi, JJ, Date 12.08.2011 P. C. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, contending that directions be issued to the Respondents to give him a permanent appointment in any department of the government in accordance with his educational qualification. The petitioner contends that he is affected by communal riots in which his father was killed. He claims that he is entitled to certain benefits which are available to the riot affected people who are from the scheduled castes and the tribes, under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He contends that he is entitled to employment as 2 wp2355.09 a matter of right, by relying on the Schedule contained in Annexure I of the Rules, framed under the Atrocities Act. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to relief in terms of items 20 and 21 in the aforesaid schedule. Item 20 provides for payment of compensation in case of murder or death of a member of the family due to certain atrocities. Under item 21, besides the compensation payable under item 20, pension is to be paid to each widow and/or other dependents of the deceased member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe who has been a victim of murder, death, massacre, rape, mass rape and gang rape, permanent incapacitation and dacoity, by way of relief at the rate of ` 1000/= or employment to one member of the family of the deceased, or provision of agricultural land, a house, if necessary for outright purchase. The full cost of education and maintenance of the children of the victims who may be admitted to Ashram schools/residential schools, so also provisions of utensils, rice, wheat, dals, pulses, etc. for a period of three months, is also to be extended as relief. 3. According to the petitioner, his mother was extended the relief of payment of pension for a period of three months at the rate of ` 1000/=, but thereafter that relief has been stopped. He contends that he has been employed with the respondent on a contract basis from 6.6.2005. He, therefore, insists that he be made permanent in service. 3 wp2355.09 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the statement made in the affidavit filed by the Social Welfare Officer Class II, on 22.9.2009, in reply to the petition, wherein he has stated; "I further respectfully say and submit that so far as grievance of the petitioner to the extent of grant of regular pay scale or to appoint him on regular basis is concerned, same shall be considered as early as possible by the Social Welfare Department and necessary steps will be taken to appoint petitioner on regular basis as and when suitable posts are available. " 5. In another affidavit filed by the Director, Social Welfare Department, on 19.10.2010 it has been averred in paragraph 4 as follows; " I further submitted as per the Service Rules and Government Resolutions the representation of the petitioner will be considered as per the availability of the post and qualification etc. required for the post. In view of aforesaid submission the Writ Petition may kindly be disposed off." 6. A third affidavit has been filed by the State through the District Social Welfare Officer explaining the statement made in the first 4 wp2355.09 affidavit and further averring as follows: "6. I respectfully say and submit that in the earlier affidavit dated 22/9/2009, it has been mentioned that steps will be taken to appoint the petitioner on regular basis. I respectfully say and submit that as per the GR dt. 1.10.1983 preference is given to the candidates who comes from the family of the victim. But the appointment has to be made as per the service rules. I respectfully say and submit that it should have been specifically mentioned in the affidavit, that preference can be given to such a candidate, but after following service rules. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has tried to capitalise on the statement made in the first affidavit filed by the Social Welfare Officer in which he has stated that the grievance of the petitioner regarding payment of a regular pay scale and appointment on a regular basis would be considered as early as possible by the Social Welfare Department. This, in our opinion, does not in any manner indicate that the appointment will be given to the petitioner. All that the affiant has stated is that the grievance of the petitioner will be considered and steps would be taken to appoint him on a regular basis as and when the post is available. 8. It is now well settled that such appointments can be made on a regular or permanent basis only after advertising the posts and considering the qualification of each individual. The Full Bench of this 5 wp2355.09 Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare vs. State of Maharashtra 209 (4) Bom.C.R. 928, has held that such reservations for project affected persons are available only as a matter of preference when all other things are equal, that is to say, the candidate must be selected by following the proper procedure and must have the requisite qualification. 9. In the present case, the petitioner claims that he is affected because of the death of his father and the violence caused to the members of his family and he is entitled to relief available under the Atrocities Act. That relief, in our opinion, cannot amount to accepting the petitioner's contention that the employment must be granted on a permanent basis. There is no dispute that the petitioner is employed on a contract basis and he has been working as such with the State ever since 2006. Now, if the petitioner desires that he should be made permanent in service, then he must approach the Administrative Tribunal and not the High Court. It is well settled law in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 that any matter pertaining to the services of employees with the Government, must be redressed by the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also claimed that the petitioner has not been paid salary. This is also a matter relating to service and, therefore, relief in that respect could be claimed before the Administrative Tribunal. 6 wp2355.09 10. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed. The costs which have been deposited by the State for not filing the affidavit in reply within the stipulated time, may be disbursed to the petitioner. (M.T. JOSHI,J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp2355.09