I

The chief regional officer The Oriental insurance company limited versus

Pradip and others.

(date of judgement: 27th January 2020.)

v  Pradip was appointed as Assistant in Oriental insurance company on the basis of a claim that he belonged to scheduled tribe namely Dhangad community on the basis of caste certificate dated 17th August 1984. Oriental insurance requested Pradip to submit a certificate in 2011 as record show that he belong to Dhangar community ( Nomadic tribe )and not Dhangad community listed as scheduled Tribe for Maharashtra.

v  Oriental insurance also wrote to the Executive Magistrate, Hingra in 2011 who informed in 2014 (yes 2014) that the caste certificate is not registered in its record. However when Pradip again approached the issuing authority, this time the issuing authority confirmed,  that the certificate had been issued from the office of the Executive Magistrate Hingra. Thereafter Pradip approached the scrutiny committee in February 2016 who in April 2016 held that Pradip does not belong to Dhangad Schedule Tribe.

v  Pradip approached high court judicature of Mumbai Nagpur bench claiming protection of service in view of full bench decision of high court in Arun sonone vs State of Maharashtra (2015). Pradip also challenged the order of scrutiny committee.

v  High court by the judgement and order dated 11th July 2016 issued direction that services of Pradip is liable to be protected.

v  Oriental insurance company appealed in supreme court submitting that the full bench decision of the Bombay High court has been overruled by 3 judge bench of the supreme court in the case of Chairman Managing Director Food corporation of India vs Jagdish Balaram bahira. (2017)

v  Supreme court noted that views of the high court in Arun sonone (2016) is unsustainable. It observed that in para 59 of the FCI case, the Court held that the high court’s reliance on the judgement of the supreme court in the case of Maharashtra vs Milind (judgement 28-11-2018) is incorrect as the supreme court in that case protected the jobs in exercise of its power conferred by article 142 which is not available to the high court under article 226 ( para 8 of Pradip case). Therefore, the Supreme court held that the basis of the judgement of the high court is unsustainable in view of the law which has been laid down in the judgement in FCI.(para 9)

v  The council of the Pradip also relied on DoPT’s dated 8th April 2019 wherein the DoPT drew attention  to the two Supreme Courts judgements namely S.G Barapatre versus Sri Ananta Gajanan Gayiki dated 10/10/ 18 and Gajanan Marotrao Nimje versus RBI dated 11/10/ 2018. As per the said two judgments the Supreme court protected the jobs of the appellants who belonged to Kosthi or halba koshti caste and who got employment on the basis of schedule tribe certificate although they are not Schedule Tribes as per the Presidential notification. DoPT directed  all ministries  to furnish the action taken in the light of the above two supreme court judgement

v  Supreme court held that both the decisions do not lay down any principle of law contrary to the binding three judge bench decision in FCI.  It held that "...neither the DOPT circular dated 8/4/2019 nor..............can depart from the principles laid down in FCI."  Referring to the DoPT order dated 8/4/2019 the Supreme court also observed that the government by an executive act cannot possibly override the binding decision of the three judge bench of this court in FCI. (para 16 of Pradip Case)

v  Finally the Supreme Court overruled the High court judgement granting protection to the respondent Shri  Pradip.