Allowed

Rupali Ghaman Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2014WP/6532/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that withholding salary for work performed (2011) due to a pending caste certificate claim is impermissible. It directed the Education Officer to consider the petitioner's case within 4 weeks and the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim within 4 months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty; directed Education Officer to consider case within four weeks and Scrutiny Committee to decide caste claim within four months.

Rupali Ghaman Thakur Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP 6532-14.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6532 OF 2014

¶5

Rupali d/o. Ghaman Thakur .Petitioner Age : 27 yrs, Occu : service R/o. Waghlud, Post : Satarkheda Tal.Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon at present Komal Co-op. Housing Society, Upnagar, Nasik.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .Respondents Through it's Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶8

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar, Division Nandurbar, Through its Member Secretary and Dy. Director (Research) Having its office at, Near R.T.O.Office, Sakri Road, Nandurbar – 425 412.

¶9

The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Tal. & Dist. Nashik.

¶10

The Secretary, Nashik Education Society, Nashik Tal. & Dist. Nashik.

¶11

The Head Master Pethe Vidyalaya, Nashik Tal. & Dist. Nashik.

¶12

Mr.K.T.Shirrurkar, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mrs S.S.Bhende, AGP, for Respondent No.1 – State Mr.P.N.Joshi, Advocate, for Respondent No.4

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

WP 6532-14.odt

¶15

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2014

¶16

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

¶17

. Heard.

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the

¶19

matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

The petitioner's caste claim belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe category is pending with respondent No.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee since 2002. The petitioner has been working with respondent No.4 since 2008 as “Shikshan Sevak”. There is no dispute that she was working without pay and without salary since 01.08.2011, mainly on the ground that she has failed to produce Caste Validity Certificate. The communication, so given by the Education officer – respondent No.3, in our view, is unjust and unacceptable. The petitioner is entitled for her salary, atleast for the work she is doing since 01.01.2011. Such withholding of salary, in our view, is impermissible.

¶21

Therefore, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in favour of similarly situated petitioner in W.P.No.3299 of

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

WP 6532-14.odt

¶24

2014 dated 05.08.2014, we are directing the Education officer – respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the receipt of proposal/salary bill to be submitted by respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks.

¶25

Therefore, the aforesaid petition is disposed of with liberty and with a further direction to respondent No. 2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today.

¶26

The Petition is accordingly disposed of, with liberty.

¶27

All points are kept open.

¶28

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. )

¶30

(A.A.SAYED, J.)

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Rupali Ghaman Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Ghaman Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Hanmantrao Marakwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept and Anr.

Sanjay Hanmantrao Marakwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept and Anr.

Vashu Panjumal Kukreja Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ku. Madhavi Madhukar Sutar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Health Dept and Ors.

Ku. Madhavi Madhukar Sutar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Health Dept and Ors.

Mahesh Shivram Puthran and Ors. Vs the Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.