AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner was employed as an Assistant in the respondent/BHEL at Tiruchirapalli. His services were terminated by an order dated 26.09.1998 on the ground that he has produced a false community certificate saying that he belongs to Kattu Naicken Community.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent / BHEL, the petitioner filed a Writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20765 of 1999, challenging the said order. The matter was grouped together along with similarly placed employees and ultimately, the issue was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench by order dated 07.02.2006 disposed of all the Writ petitions including that of the petitioners. While dismissing all the Writ petitions, the Full Bench directed that the matters of community certificate, Civil Court has got no jurisdiction and they should not entertain any such suit. Subsequent to the dismissal of the Writ petition, the petitioner once again filed another Writ petition being W.P.(MD)No.14486 of 1999 challenging an order dated 26.07.1999, wherein, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli declined to grant the community certificate. The said Writ petition was heard along with the another Writ petition by a Division Bench.
By a common order dated 04.03.2008, the Division Bench disposed of both the Writ petitions and the Division Bench held that after the decision of the Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , the revenue authorities cannot pass any orders and the matter will have to go before the District Level Vigilance Committee set up by the Government in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil case.
The Division Bench in paragraph 15 declared as follows:
15.Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we are convinced that the impugned orders of the 1st respondent even dated 26.07.1999 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the geniuses of the community certificates issued to the petitioners dated 25.07.1972 and 04.04.1978 whether they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community.
(ii) The Committee shall pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, as the matters are pending for decades together and for one another reason that not only the right of the petitioners is involved since they already reached the age of superannuation, but also to that of their children to avail the benefits conferred on them constitutionally in the field of education as well as employment.
(iii) The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall do the above exercise after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to both the petitioners and shall strictly adhere to the time limit prescribed and report compliance of the same to this court after 12 weeks.
(iv) The Writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. No costs.
A perusal of the operative portion of the Division Bench does not show that there was a direction to restore the petitioner to service pending enquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, wherein, the petitioner''s community certificate question is still pending for consideration. But, taking advantage of the judgment made by the Division Bench dated 04.03.2008 the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent and requested them to restore him to service. In response to her request, the respondent / BHEL by the impugned order dated 04.06.2008 informed the petitioner that the matter relating to community certificate had been delegated to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and therefore, in the absence of any direction for restoration, the judgment of the Full Bench rendered in the petitioner''s case will prevail. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition as noted already.
Notice of motion was ordered on 30.06.2008 in the Writ petition. Pending the Writ petition, no interim relief was granted. On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 01.08.2011. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the right of the management to take disciplinary action was not restricted and ultimately there is no decision to show that the dismissal order passed by the management was set aside by any Court. Even if the Division Bench judgment of which the petitioner wants to take advantage, it had only relegated the issue to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The stand taken by the respondent cannot be found fault with. The petitioner cannot presume that the Division Bench had made a direction to restore him to service. If the petitioner had any doubt, he should have made appropriate clarification petition before the Division Bench. In the absence of any positive direction issued by the Division Bench, there is nothing illegal about the respondent management in relying upon the Full Bench judgment rendered in the case of the petitioner himself, wherein, the Full Bench did not interfere with the order passed by the competent authority namely, the employers of the respective employees.
Hence, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. However, if ultimately the petitioner succeeds before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and gets a final order, he can workout his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.