1 wp1109-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1109 OF 2010 1] Umakant S/o Rajaram Gadalwad Age 41 years, Occ-Service with the office of the Divisional Controller, State Transport,Nanded as Conductor in Kinwat Depot, R/o Islapur, Tq. Kinwat Dist.Nanded. .. PETITIONER Vs 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Transport,M.S. Mantralaya,Mumbai 2] The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Managing Director, M.S. Mumbai. 3] The Divisional Controller, State Transport, Nanded. .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri Shri R.S.Deshmukh, Adv.for petitioner. Shri P.P.More,AGP for Respondent State. Shri M.K.Goyanka,Adv. for Respondent nos.2 & 3. ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 23/09/2011 2 wp1109-10 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally. 2] The petitioner was appointed on 7/9/1998 as a Conductor on daily-wages by the respondent-Corporation for a considerable period. By a communication dated 29/5/2000, services of the petitioner were regularised. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Mannervarlu- Scheduled Tribe. It was necessary for petitioner to produce the validity certificate. By an order dated 31/5/2003, the caste verification committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner came to be terminated by the Corporation on 10/6/2003. The petitioner filed Writ Petition against order passed by the scrutiny committee bearing No.454/2004. By judgment dated 23/3/2009, the Division Bench [Coram : P.V.Hardas and A.V.Potdar,JJ.] allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the committee for deciding it afresh. 3] The committee issued validity certificate to the petitioner on 8/6/2009. The petitioner was thereafter appointed by the Corporation on 24/7/2009 on temporary basis. It was clarified that the petitioner 3 wp1109-10 would not get any monetary benefits for the period from 10/6/2003 to 24/6/2009. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue of service of petitioner was subjudice before the Court and ultimately caste verification committee issued a validity certificate. The petitioner therefore, is entitled to be reinstated as a regular employee from the initial date of regularisation of petitioner’s services i.e. from 29/5/2000 alongwith consequential benefits. The petitioner is not claiming back wages. 5] The learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner failed to produce caste validity certificate. The petitioner’s appointment is treated as fresh appointment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any consequential benefits. The counsel further submits that the petitioner has not worked for the period from 10/6/2003 and 24/6/2009, therefore, he is not entitled for any wages accruing to the petitioner during that period. 6] We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions advanced. We find that the petitioner had challenged order passed by scrutiny committee. This Court had remanded the matter back to the scrutiny committee. Thereafter, the committee issued the certificate. In these facts of the case, the petitioner ought to 4 wp1109-10 have been reinstated back in service by the Corporation. The issue raised by the counsel for Corporation that the petitioner would not be entitled to wages for the period from 10/6/2003 to 24/6/2009 seems to be reasonable and sustainable view. But we find that in the facts of the case, the petitioner’s services for the period of absence can be counted for the purpose of calculation of the pension only. Though the petitioner would be entitled for continuity in service but the petitioner shall not be entitled for any wages for the said period or increments for the said period. 7] The learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner has alternate remedy to approach the labour Court. The learned counsel Shri Deshmukh submits that the petitioner had already spent 9 years in litigating the petition. The petitioner is 41 years of age. The alternate remedy is not efficacious in the facts of the case, and in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we proceed to dispose of the petition. 8] The petitioner is not entitled for wages for the period from 10/6/2003 to 24/6/2009. The petitioner’s services for the said period of absence shall be counted for the purpose of calculation of his pension. The petitioner is entitled to claim continuity of service but shall not be entitled for wages or increments for the said period. 5 wp1109-10 9] In the light of the order made as above, Rule is made partly absolute. No costs. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] umg/wp1109-10