Remanded

Sunita Dasu Rathod v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2011WP/9712/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee's order treating the petitioner as a migrant. The Court found the Committee erred in assuming Bijapur was never part of Bombay State, thus remanding the claim for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee to hear the petitioner and decide the caste claim afresh.

Sunita Dasu Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

 WP9712.11

¶3

Bsb

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9712 OF 2011

¶6

Sunita Dasu Rathod @ Smt.Kiran Krushna Pawar

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

v/s

¶9

State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos.1, 2 and 4.

¶13

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶14

DATED: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011

¶15

P.C. (Smt.Mhatre, J.):

¶16

The order passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Ratnagiri, dated 22.9.2011 has been impugned in the present petition on the ground that the Committee has erroneously held that the petitioner is a migrant.

¶17

The petitioner claims that she belongs to the Lamani caste which is recognized as a Vimukta Jati. She was issued

¶18

¶19

 WP9712.11

¶20

a caste certificate by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chiplun on 17.8.1996. The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in the Zilla Parishad Ratnagiri on the basis of this certificate. After her appointment, she submitted her caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee for validating the same along with other documents in support of her caste claim. A home enquiry was conducted through the vigilance cell. Statements of various persons including the petitioner’s relatives and the Sarpanch of the village were recorded in the vigilance enquiry. The Scrutiny Committee disagreed with the observations of the vigilance cell and passed an order on 23.7.2010 invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner. As the petitioner was not afforded hearing, she approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7894 of 2010. The writ petition was allowed and the order of the Scrutiny Committee was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding it afresh after hearing the petitioner.

¶21

After the Committee heard the petitioner and on consideration of the material on record, the Scrutiny Committee has held that the petitioner's caste certificate could not be validated as she was a migrant. The Committee has found that the petitioner’s father migrated to the State of Maharashtra for earning his livelihood in the year 1959 and

¶22

¶23

 WP9712.11

¶24

that her forefathers were residents of Karnataka State. The Committee held that no documentary evidence was produced to establish that the petitioner’s family’s permanent place of residence was in Maharashtra prior to 1961. The Committee noted that villages in which the petitioner’s father had been a resident were not part of the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, though the petitioner did belong to the Lamani caste which was recognized a Vimukta Jati in this State, she was not entitled to any concession meant for that caste in the State of Maharashtra.

¶25

The petitioner has contended that several years ago her grandfather lived in Jalwal, Taluka Singhi, Dist. Bijapur which is now in the State of Karnataka. Her father moved to Dokrawali, which is now in the State of Maharashtra, about 50 to 60 years ago and worked as a labourer. According to the petitioner, the District of Bijapur was in the original State of Bombay and therefore she cannot be considered as a migrant. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, had the District of Bijapur not been in the State of Bombay prior to the enactment of the States Reorganization Act of 1956, it could be said that he she was a migrant. It is therefore submitted that since the petitioner’s grandfather lived in Bijapur, a part of the erstwhile State of Bombay prior to 1956, she cannot be regarded as a migrant.

¶26

¶27

 WP9712.11

¶28

It appears from the record that the petitioner’s family migrated to Maharashtra from Bijapur which is now in the Karnataka State. Unfortunately, the Committee was under the mistaken motion that Bijapur was not a part of the State of Bombay prior to the reorganization of the States in 1956 under the aforesaid Act. In our opinion, therefore, the Committee has committed a serious error by not considering whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession available for the Lamani caste in the State of Maharashtra.

¶29

5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

¶30

The Committee will hear the petition and decide the caste claim of the petitioner afresh and as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

7. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

¶33

¶34

 WP9712.11

Sunita Dasu Rathod v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Dasu Rathod v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Rudrapa Jagannath Wani

Vaishali Baban Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Kamlakar Bayaji Khadekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrinath Omkaran Umbarje and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Pingale Shivaji Baburao Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Dept of Higher and Technical Education and or

Shobha Adinath Phuke Vs Natepute Education Society and Ors.