GOWRAMMA C. Vs. MANAGER (PERSONNEL), HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The appellant impugns the judgment of the Division Bench by which the High Court confirmed the view taken by the learned single Judge. The original appellant passed away and the legal representatives pursue the appeal as additional appellants.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as Staff Nurse (Group-C) with the respondent. There was an inquiry against her by the respondent on the charge that the appellant had professed to belong to the Scheduled Caste category and secured employment, whereas, she did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community. The Tahasildar verified the caste certificate and vide order dtd. 10/7/2009, it was found that the appellant did not belong to the community 'Adi Karnataka' which is a Scheduled Caste. The appellant challenged the order of the Tahasildar before the High Court and the learned single Judge repelled the challenge to the order by its judgment dtd. 29/12/2009. Following the said judgment, it is that the Disciplinary Authority, by order dtd. 8/10/2010, dismissed the appellant from service relying upon the order of the Tahasildar. The appellant challenged the judgment of the learned single Judge before the Division Bench and the Division Bench by judgment dtd. 28/6/2011 allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and found that actually the power to rule on the Caste status did not lie with the Tahasildar but with another authority and verification of the caste certificate was directed to be made over to the Bangalore District Caste Verification Committee, which was the Competent Authority. The said authority verified the caste status of the appellant and found that the appellant, in fact, belonged to the Scheduled Caste in question. There upon the appellant gave a representation and on 12/4/2014, the appellant was reinstated without any consequential benefits. A representation dtd. 28/4/2014, did not yield results. This occasioned the filing of the writ petitions, which has finally generated the appeals before us.

(3.) The learned Single Judge partly allowed the Writ Petitions filed and directed the first respondent to give promotion, if any, notionally and 50 per cent of the back wages and the retirement benefits on the basis of the last pay cheque that she would be entitled to, in case, she were granted any notional promotion. The appellant filed a review petition which was dismissed. Thereafter, the writ appeals were filed, which culminated in the impugned order being passed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.