Allowed

Shri. Vijay Hanumant Bhoinallu v. Sr. Suptdt. of Post Offices, Pune City and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Apr 2014WP/4336/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected writ petitions, the High Court granted service protection and reinstatement to petitioners rejected from Scheduled Tribe to Special Backward Class category. The court relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare that benefits granted post-28.11.2000 as ST can be withdrawn by employers.

What did the court decide?

Quashed termination orders; granted reinstatement with service continuity (no back wages); declared benefits granted post 28.11.2000 can be withdrawn; directed submission of existing SBC certificates.

Shri. Vijay Hanumant Bhoinallu Vs Sr. Suptdt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 39-50-wp1219.10 and wp4336.14gp.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1219 OF 2010

¶5

Shri Dnyandeo Zuka Misal Age 40, Occu- Service R/o. At Survey No. 74, Flat No. 22, Behind Katraj Diary, Katraj, Pune-411 046

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribunal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region, Pune.

¶10

3 The Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, Purandar, Dist. Pune.

¶11

4 The Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Pune city West Division, Lokmanyanagar, Pune 411 030.

¶12

5 Hon. Postmaster General, Pune Region Pune, Pune 411 001.

¶13

6 Hon. Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai 400 001. … Respondents

¶14

1/6

¶15

2 39-50-wp1219.10 and wp4336.14gp.sxw

¶16

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 OF 2014

¶17

Shri Vijay Hanumant Bhoinallu Age: 41 years, Occu. Service, R/o- 13/4/5 Vadgaon Budruk, Anand Nagar, Pune-51.

¶18

....Petitioner

¶19

Vs.

¶20

1 Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Pune City West Division, Lokmanyanagar, Pune-30.

¶21

2 Director Postal Service, Pune Region, Pune Division,411001.

¶22

3 Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, GPO Mumbai 400 001.

¶23

4 The State of Maharashtra ….Respondents

¶24

Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Ms. M. S. Bane, “B” Panel counsel for the State.

¶25

CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶26

M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE :- 30 APRIL 2014.

¶27

JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-

¶28

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶29

Learned counsel waives service for the State.

¶30

Heard finally by consent of all the parties.

¶31

2/6

¶32

3 39-50-wp1219.10 and wp4336.14gp.sxw

¶33

2 In above two Petitions, the Petitioners', caste claim, being

¶34

“Mahadeo Koli” - Scheduled Tribe category (S.T. Category) have been rejected and basically holding that they belong to “Koli - Special Backward class” (SBC). The material placed on record and so also the observation given, apart from various documents though to some extent support the cases that they belong to “Mahadeo Koli”, they unable to prove the same. The conclusion that they belong to Koli (SBC), the Petitioners in the present matters, relying on Dattu Namdeo Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra¹ , Kavita Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra and ors² and A. P. Ramtekkar vs. State of Maharashtra³ , praying that their services be protected and an appropriate order, including of reinstatement on certain conditions be awarded/granted and benefits be restricted as done in other matters, including recent judgments, on the foundation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitions by respective Petitioners.

¶35

1 (2012) 1 SCC 549

¶36

2 2012 (5) Mh. L. J. 92 3 2013 (2) Mh. L. J. 415

¶37

3 The following is the chart which shows the respective

¶38

3/6

¶39

4 39-50-wp1219.10 and wp4336.14gp.sxw

¶40

Petitioners joining of service, caste, the continuity of service and the

¶41

date of termination of service.

¶42

Sr. No.	W.P. No.	Name of the Petitioner	Working Since	Respond ent No.	Caste now claimed	Interim protection granted.	Date of Termination
1	1219/2010	D.Z. Misal	15.06.1994 order issue 15.07.1995	WITH RESPON DENT NO. 4	KOLI, SBC.	Service has been discontinued	10/01/2013
2	4336/2014	V.H. Bhoinallu	01.11.1994 order issue 15.07.1995	WITH RESPON DENT NO. 1	KOLI, SBC.	Service has been discontinued	10/01/2013

¶43

4 However, we are restricting to the date of Constitution

¶44

Bench Judgment in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.⁴ i.e. 28.11.2000 as followed in other matters, even by the Supreme Court. The Petitioners, in these matters, also submitted to restrict the date as 28.11.2000.

¶45

5 In view of reasoning given in Writ Petition No. 3014 of 2004 - Rakesh S. Dafade vs. State of Maharashtra dated 04.04.2014, and other connected groups as the facts and circumstances are same and similar we are inclined to pass the following order :-

¶46

4 (2001) 1 SCC 4

¶47

4/6

¶48

5 39-50-wp1219.10 and wp4336.14gp.sxw

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

a) The Petitioners are entitled for protection of service and reinstatement to their respective posts, with continuity of service, except back wages.

¶51

b) Impugned termination orders are quashed and set aside.

¶52

c) It is made clear that the Petitioners would not be entitled to any further caste benefits on the basis of the earlier certificate.

¶53

d) It is further declared that the benefits, if any, granted after 28.11.2000 being belonging to “Mahadeo Koli” (S.T.), the

¶54

Respondents/employers/managements are at liberty to withdraw the benefits and to restore the position as on 28.11.2000.

¶55

e) The Petitioners/employees/candidates to submit the present/existing caste certificates (Koli- SBC) to complete the formality of service record as soon as possible and preferably within six months or as

¶56

5/6

¶57

6 39-50-wp1219.10 and wp4336.14gp.sxw

¶58

soon as available.

¶59

f) Rule is made absolute accordingly in both the Petitions.

¶60

g) All the parties to cooperate accordingly. h) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

(M.S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶62

6/6

Shri. Vijay Hanumant Bhoinallu v. Sr. Suptdt. of Post Offices, Pune City and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vijay Hanumant Bhoinallu v. Sr. Suptdt. of Post Offices, Pune City and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Harishchandra Keshav Dhodi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Tryambak Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Tribal Development and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Tryambak Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development and Ors.

Shri Taibai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Balgi, through President, Rajkumar Baburao Hanchate and Anr. Vs Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Division and Ors.

Shriram Education Society, Karganis, Shri Tanajirao Patil Education (B.Ed and M.Ed) College Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Surendra Desai Vs Boyapati Gopal S/O. B. Achappa and Ors.