Collector must decide the reinstatement representation after caste scrutiny confirms the employee’s tribal status.

The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 22 March 1988, was terminated on 07 April 1999 on the allegation that he had submitted a forged caste certificate.

He challenged the termination in WPS No. 3240 of 2005. By order dated 29 September 2010, the High Court set aside the termination and directed that the petitioner be reinstated with consequential benefits if the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee found him to belong to the “Bharia” Scheduled Tribe.

The Committee subsequently held, by order dated 08 October 2015, that the petitioner belonged to the Bharia Tribe.

Alleging non-compliance with the earlier judgment, the petitioner submitted several representations, including one dated 08 April 2026, to the Collector, Korba.

As the representation remained undecided, he filed the present writ petition seeking its consideration and compliance with the earlier order.

The Court applied the principle that a specific judicial direction must be considered and implemented by the competent administrative authority in accordance with its terms.

Under the order dated 29 September 2010 in WPS No. 3240 of 2005, the petitioner was to be reinstated with consequential benefits if the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee found him to belong to the Bharia Tribe.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that a pending representation must be decided by the competent authority within a reasonable, court-prescribed period and in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the earlier judgment created a specific obligation linked to the outcome of the caste-verification proceedings.

Since the Scrutiny Committee had subsequently confirmed that the petitioner belonged to the Bharia Tribe, the factual condition contemplated in the earlier order appeared to have been satisfied.

However, in the present proceedings, the petitioner had primarily sought consideration of his pending representation, and the State counsel undertook that the Collector would decide it in accordance with law.

Accordingly, rather than directly ordering reinstatement, the Court required the Collector to examine the representation while keeping the earlier judgment dated 29 September 2010 in view.

The decision was directed to be taken preferably within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court did not itself grant reinstatement or consequential benefits in the present proceedings.