L.I.C OF INDIA versus SUSHIL

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 558 · Decided: 23-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
L.LC. OF INDIA 
v. 
SUSHIL 
JANUARY 23, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Reservation in Appointment-Appointment on post reserved for Scheduled 
C Tribe-Social Status Certificate found to have been obtained wrongly and 
fraudulentl~Employee giving an undertaking not to claim any benefit either 
in service or anywhere else-High Court directing that services of employee 
be not terminated-Held, filing of undertaking not to be treated as ratio of 
judgment in Milind's case-Matter remitted to High Court for decision afresh 
1 
: 
r 
D on merits-Social Status Certificate. 
I 
I 
Respondent was appointed by the appellant Corporation on the basis 
of his claim of being a Scheduled Tribe belonging to Halba caste. The 
Committee for scrutiny and verification of Tribe Claims found that the 
respondent wrongly and fraudulently claimed the benefit. The High Court, 
E in view of an undertaking given on behalf of the respondent that he would 
not claim any benefit either in his service or anywhere else, and referring 
to the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors.,• held that 
services of the respondent be not terminated notwithstanding the 
invalidation order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. Aggrieved, the Life · 
F Insurance Corporation filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD. I.I. The protection under Miland's case cannot be extended 
to the respondent as the protection was given under the peculiar factual 
background of that case, and the Court felt it not desirable to deprive the 
G society of a doctor's service. The factor which weighed with the Court in 
that case cannot be applied to the respondent herein. In Miland's case filing 
.• 
of the undertaking was not to be treated as ratio of the judgment. 
[560-D-E-GJ 
H 
558 
.· 
. 
L 
L.I.C. OF INDIA v. SUSHIL [PASAYAT. J.J 
' 
\ 
*State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Or.s., 12001 I I SCC 4, explained A 
and held not applicable • 
. Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash D. Maridivikar ;,nd Ors., 120051 7 
. sec 690, relied on. 
1.2. As the High Court has not considered the matter in its proper B 
perspective, except relying on Milind's case, it would be appropriate to 
• 
remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits or 
·the case: 156i-B-q 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No~ 7j9 of2006. 
. 
. 
. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.2004 of the Bombay High 
Court in Writ Petition No. 3008 of 2004. 
. 
. 
G.E. Vahanavati, SG A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan and Buddy A. 
Ranganathan for the Appellant; 
I 
U.U. Lalit and Mrs. Sarla Chandra for _the Respondent. 
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J .. Leave granted. 
. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of 
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagp;.r.The respondent had secured 
employment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India {hereinafter referred 
to as the 'LIC') the appellant in this appeal on the basis that he.belongs to 
Scheduled_ Tribe. Undisputedly, his caste was recorded as Halba. Committee 
D 
E 
· for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amaravati vide its order dated F 
30.4.2004 held that respondent's claim of belo~ging to Scheduled Tribe was 
wrong. unfounded and was a fraudulent claim. The order was questioned by 
respondent before the High cOurt by filing a writ petition, Before the High 
Court, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner · 
was willing to file an undertaking to the effect that he ·will not claim any G 
~ , 
benefit ·on the basisofhis case as Halb~ eith~i i~· his. service or anywhere else 
~ 
at any time for himself as well as for his legal heirs. With reference to a 
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors. (2001] I 
SCC_:I. the High Court held that in view of the undertaking the writ petitioner's 
services were not to be terminated notwithstanding invalidation order passed 
by the Scrutiny Committee. 
H 
.-· 
-
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A 
Learned counsel for the LIC submitted that the approach of the High 
Court is clearly erroneous. In Mi/ind's case (supra) this Court never laid 
down any principle of law having universal application. The observations in 
para 38 of the judgment were limited to the peculiar facts of the case. The 
High Court erroneously proceeded on the basis that the decision laid down 
B a rule of universal application. 
In r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.