(1) WP 2131.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2131 OF 2011 Rekha Sayanna Totawar Age : 43 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through it's Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed 5. The Scheduled Tribe Welfare Committee, Maharashtra Vidhan Mandal, Through it's Under Secretary (Committee) Secretariat, Maharahstra Vidhan Mandal, Vidhan Bhawan, Backbay Reclamation, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Mumbai RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. S.S. Dambe, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ..... (2) WP 2131.2011 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - B.R. GAVAI , J.): 1. Inspite of the notices being duly served in pursuance of the order dated 4.5.2011, the respondents have not filed any reply. As such, the allegations in the Petition will have to be treated as un-controverted. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Head by consent. 3. The petitioner impugns the order dated 7.2.2011, vide which, the order dated 14.5.2010, deciding to terminate the services of the petitioner, on the ground of non-submission of the validity certificate, is confirmed. 4. The petitioner's husband was working in the respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad. However, it appears that the husband of the petitioner died on 19.3.2000. Consequently, the petitioner came to be appointed on (3) WP 2131.2011 compassionate ground on the post of Peon on 17.5.2000. It appears that subsequently, the respondent no.2 passed an order on 14.5.2010 thereby terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted a validity certificate, certifying that she belongs to scheduled tribe. It appears that the said order was put under suspension. Subsequently, vide the impugned order, the respondent no.2 has confirmed the earlier order. 5. Shri Dambe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submits that since the husband of the petitioner was from the reserved category i.e. scheduled tribe, it was necessary that the petitioner should have submitted her caste validity certificate. He further submits that the services of the petitioner have been terminated in accordance with the directions issued by the Scheduled Tribe Welfare Committee of the Maharashtra Legislature. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner's appointment is on the ground of compassion since her husband had (4) WP 2131.2011 died in harness. In any case, the appointment of the petitioner is on compassionate ground. 7. Insofar as the directions issued by the Scheduled Tribe Welfare Committee of the Maharashtra Legislature is concerned, the direction which is given is that such of the candidates who are appointed on reserved category post and who have not submitted validity certificate, such candidate should be terminated. 8. Since we find that the petitioner was not appointed against the post reserved for any particular category and on compassionate ground, on account of death of her husband during the period of service, the said direction could not be applicable. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). It is made clear that the petitioner would be reinstated within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The break in service from the date on which she was released till she is actually reinstated in pursuance of this order, would stand condoned for the purposes of continuity in (5) WP 2131.2011 service and all other service benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for the backwages during the said period. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/