Facts
The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 09.09.1988, was terminated on 07.04.1999 on the allegation that he had submitted a forged caste certificate.
Source reference: no citationHe challenged the termination in WPS No. 3242 of 2005. By order dated 10.03.2010, the High Court set aside the termination and directed that the petitioner’s case be referred to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee; if he was found to belong to the Bharia Scheduled Tribe, he was to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
Source reference: para. 2The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee subsequently held, by order/report dated 08.10.2015, that the petitioner belonged to the Bharia Tribe.
Source reference: para. 5Despite this finding, the petitioner alleged that he had not been reinstated or granted consequential benefits and that his representation dated 11.04.2010 seeking compliance remained pending.
Source reference: paras. 2, 6The State submitted that the representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law.
Source reference: para. 3Issues
Whether the Collector, Korba, was required to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 11.04.2010 in light of the earlier High Court order dated 10.03.2010?
Source reference: paras. 2, 5–6Whether the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement and consequential benefits was required to be examined after the Caste Scrutiny Committee found him to be a member of the Bharia Tribe?
Source reference: paras. 2, 5–6Law Applied
The Court applied the binding effect of its earlier order in WPS No. 3242 of 2005, which directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits if the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee found the petitioner to belong to the Bharia Tribe.
Source reference: paras. 2, 5It further applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law and in conformity with judicial directions, particularly where the factual condition specified in the earlier order has been fulfilled.
Source reference: paras. 5–6Reasoning
The Court found that the earlier order imposed a specific obligation upon the respondents: upon a finding that the petitioner belonged to the Bharia Tribe, his reinstatement with consequential benefits was to follow.
Source reference: para. 5Since the Caste Scrutiny Committee had admittedly recorded such a finding on 08.10.2015, the condition in the earlier judicial direction stood satisfied.
Source reference: para. 5In view of the petitioner’s pending representation and the State counsel’s undertaking that it would be considered, the Court directed the Collector to examine the representation while keeping the earlier order dated 10.03.2010 in view.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Korba, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 11.04.2010 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view the High Court’s earlier order in WPS No. 3242 of 2005.
The decision was to be made preferably within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.
Source reference: para. 6Original Court PDF
BRIJRAM BHARIAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
