Partly allowed

Wasudeo S/O Narayanrao Mengewar v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zp, Yavatmal and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2011WP/820/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed a writ petition challenging the termination of services due to demand for caste verification documents. The court held that since the caste claim could not be verified, the termination order could not stand. The order of termination dated 27.1.2011 was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.1.2011 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to supply documents to the employer within two weeks for forwarding to the Committee.

Wasudeo S/O Narayanrao Mengewar Vs the Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No.820/2011

¶4

[Wasudeo N. Mengewar .vrs. The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Yavatmal and others]

¶5

................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶7

P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶8

DATE : JULY 13, 2011.

¶9

Heard Shri Anil S. Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri J.Y. Ghurde, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

¶10

It appears that respondent nos.1 to 4 demanded requisite documents for the first time after about 14 years of services of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that accordingly he submitted the necessary documents on 22.9.2009 with communication at Annexure - C with the writ petition and those documents are forwarded by the Education Officer to the Block Development Officer. According to him, till date, the caste claim is not verified and the petitioner has been terminated. Attention has been

¶11

¶12

invited to Civil Application (W) No.1742/2011 to point out that in reply employer came up with the story of termination on 27.1.2011.

¶13

Advocate Shri Mardikar, however, states that after orders of this Court, the petitioner is already reinstated and presently working.

¶14

Advocate Shri Ghurde states that the petitioner did not supply necessary documents in spite of demand and hence decision to terminate his services was taken. He denies the receipt of any documents from the petitioner for forwarding the same to respondent no.5 Committee.

¶15

Advocate Shri Sambre states that if the committee receives the requisite papers/documents, the committee can look into the caste claim of the petitioner.

¶16

Advocate Shri Mardikar has produced photostat copy of that caste certificate. During hearing the same is taken on record and marked as Exh. X for identification.

¶17

The petitioner is already continuing in service and hence Civil Application (W) No. 1742/2011 filed by him is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶18

The petitioner is directed to supply requisite documents for forwarding the same to the Caste

¶19

¶20

Scrutiny Committee to his employer i.e. respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from today. If such documents are received, respondent no.1 shall forward the same in accordance with the law to respondent no.5 – Committee. Respondent no.5 shall then proceed to adjudicate the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act No. XXIII of 2001. It is apparent that as the caste claim of the petitioner still not looked into, order of termination can not stand. The order dated 27.1.2011 is, therefore, quashed and set aside.

¶21

Respondent no.1 is at liberty to pass fresh orders in this respect, if it notices that the petitioner is not cooperating in the matter either with respondent no.1 or respondent no.5.

¶22

With this liberty and observations, the petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶23

Certified copy is expedited.

¶24

JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

Gulande

Wasudeo S/O Narayanrao Mengewar v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zp, Yavatmal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasudeo S/O Narayanrao Mengewar v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zp, Yavatmal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Vinayakrao Dharashivkar and 3 Others Vs Homeopathic Eucation Society, through Its President/Secretary and 2 Others

Vaishnavi Sugar India Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman and Ors. Vs the Reserve Bank of India Thr. Its Dy. General Manager and Ors.

Narendra S/O Bhalchandra Tumpalliwar Vs Shabari Adiwasi Vitta Wa Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit Thr. Its M.D.

Shri Harischandra S/O Nathuji Dongre Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Inspector General of Police and 2 Others

Star Circlikps and Engineering Thr. Its Manager and Auth. Signatory Vs Mah. Pollution Control Board Thr. Its Member Secty.

Usha D/O Kisanrao Khedkar Vs the Collector, Akola and 3 Others