New Delhi, Oct 14: In a rare instance, the Supreme Court has come to the rescue of a man belonging to the Scheduled Caste category whose services were terminated twice by the Uttar Pradesh government owing to a dispute over his caste certificate.

The top court, held that the subsequent change in law does not have the effect of reversing all the decisions made prior to the fresh view taken by a court of law.

The Supreme Court in 2013 had upheld an Allahabad High Court order by which Vijay Shankar was reinstated to service with all consequential benefits, holding him as a member of SC category after state government had withdrawn its appeal following a lengthy hearing.

The Uttar Pradesh government, however, in 2015 again dismissed him from service, saying a larger bench of the high court has taken a different view and his caste does not fall under the Schedule Caste category.

Shankar, who belongs to the 'Kasera' community, a sub-caste of 'Shilpkars' which is a SC category notified under the Constitution, challenged the decision once again before the Allahabad High Court, but it dismissed his plea saying that the law has now been changed by a larger bench of the top court.

A bench of justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao said the high court in its judgment, dated August 12,2015, has completely "misappreciated and misapplied the law".

"The difference between a superior court reversing a decision, which is in appeal before itself, and overruling the view is well known," it said.

The apex court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to immediately release the withheld pension and other retirement benefits of Shankar, who superannuated from the post of assistant prosecution officer during his second termination period.

The court, while allowing the appeal of Shankar, set aside the high court order of August 2015, rejecting his plea and his dismissal order of June 15, 2015.

"If a point is settled inter-parties and there is a subsequent change in the law because the court takes a different view, the change in a law does not have the effect of unsettling the rights settled earlier.

"The subsequent change in a law does not have the effect of reversing all the decisions made prior to the fresh view," the bench said.

It said in the present case, Shankar's rights were settled by the earlier high court judgment of December 23, 2011, which was upheld when the appeal of the state government was dismissed as withdrawn by the apex court.

The apex court said it was not permissible for the principal secretary, home department, to rely upon the subsequent contrary decision and dismiss the appellant (Shankar) from service again.

The ordeal of Shankar, who joined the service in 1991 as assistant prosection officer, started when he was terminated on May 21, 2007, by the state government on the ground that he has obtained the job by submitting a forged Scheduled Caste certificate.

It was found that Shankar's caste was recorded as 'Kasera' in his school certificate, which according to the state government was not a SC category.

Shankar, first challenged his dismissal order before the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal, which granted him relief by setting aside the punishment order and reinstated him with all consequential service benefits and continuity in service.

The tribunal also observed that 'Kasera' is a sub-caste of 'Shilpkar' as per a government order dated December 12,1950.

It said there are 26 sub castes of 'Shilpkar' and that 'Kasera' was one of them.

Thus, 'Kasera' being a sub-caste of 'Shilpkar' comes under the category of Scheduled Caste, the tribunal said.

Aggrieved by the tribunal's order, the Uttar Pradesh government moved the Allahabad High Court that on December 23, 2011, upheld the tribunal's order, saying the caste of his parents as per the National Citizen Register, was found to be 'Shilpkar', which is a Scheduled Caste.

The state government, then moved the apex court where after a lengthy hearing, the appeal was withdrawn and the order of the high court reinstating Shankar was upheld.

The problem started thereafter as in a separate case, a full bench of the high court on May 29, 2014, held that the 'Kasera' caste did not fall under the Schedule Caste category and the order given in Shankar's case was wrong in law.

Relying on the full bench order of the high court, the government again dismissed Shankar's case, saying the law has now changed and his caste does not fall under schedule caste category.

Shankar, then filed the appeal before the apex court against the order of the high court dismissing his petition against the second dismissal order.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



Mumbai, Jul 26 (PTI): Enforcement Directorate searches against the companies of Reliance Group chairman Anil Ambani in Mumbai continued for the third day on Saturday with the agency recovering a number of documents and computer peripherals from multiple locations, official sources said.

The raids were launched on July 24 by the federal probe agency as part of an alleged Rs 3,000 crore worth bank loan fraud-linked money laundering case apart from multiple other allegations of financial irregularities with crores of rupees by certain companies.

The searches, being conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), are continuing at some locations out of the more than 35 premises that were covered in Mumbai since Thursday, the sources said.

These premises belong to 50 companies and 25 people including a number of executives of the Anil Ambani Group companies.

ED sources had said the investigation primarily pertains to allegations of illegal loan diversion of around Rs 3,000 crore, given by the Yes Bank to the group companies of Ambani between 2017-2019.

Reliance Power and Reliance Infrastructure, two companies of the group, had on Thursday informed the stock exchanges saying while they acknowledge the action, the raids had "absolutely no impact" on their business operations, financial performance, shareholders, employees, or any other stakeholders.

"The media reports appear to pertain to allegations concerning transactions of Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM) or Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) which are over 10 years old," the companies had said.

The ED, the sources had said, has found that just before the loan was granted, Yes Bank promoters "received" money in their concerns.

The agency is investigating this nexus of "bribe" and the loan.

The sources said the ED is also probing allegations of "gross violations" in Yes Bank loan approvals to these companies including charges like back-dated credit approval memorandums, investments proposed without any due diligence/credit analysis in violation of banks credit policy.

The loans are alleged to have been "diverted" to many group companies and "shell" (bogus) companies by the entities involved.

The agency is also looking at some instances of loans given to entities with weak financials, lack of proper documentation of loans and due diligence, borrowers having common addresses and common directors in their companies etc., the sources said.

The money laundering case stems from at least two CBI FIRs and reports shared by the National Housing Bank, SEBI, National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) and Bank of Baroda with the ED, they said.

These reports indicate, the sources said, that there was a "well-planned and thought after scheme" to divert or siphon off public money by cheating banks, shareholders, investors and other public institutions.

The Union government had informed the Parliament recently that the State Bank of India has classified RCOM along with Ambani as 'fraud' and was also in the process of lodging a complaint with the CBI.

A bank loan "fraud" of more than Rs 1,050 crore between RCOM and Canara Bank is also under the scanner of the ED apart from some "undisclosed" foreign bank accounts and assets, the sources said.

Reliance Mutual fund is also stated to have invested Rs 2,850 crore in AT-1 bonds and a "quid pro quo" is suspected here by the agency.

Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) are perpetual bonds issued by banks to increase their capital base and they are riskier than traditional bonds having higher interest rates. An alleged loan fund diversion of about Rs 10,000 crore involving Reliance Infrastructure too is under the scanner of the agency.

A Sebi report on RHFL is also part of the ED probe.

The companies also said in their filings before the stock exchanges that Anil Ambani was not on the Board of either Reliance Power or Reliance Infrastructure and that they had no "business or financial linkage" to RCOM or RHFL.

Any action taken against RCOM or RHFL, the companies said, has no bearing or impact on the governance, management, or operations of either Reliance Power or Reliance Infrastructure.