Allowed

Anil Vitthal Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2014WP/6933/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court protects the petitioner in government service with continuity, noting that his invalidated 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe caste claim does not entitle him to future caste benefits or those accrued after a specific constitutional cutoff date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner protected in service with continuity; no caste benefits entitlement for invalidated claim or post-November 28, 2000 benefits.

Anil Vitthal Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp-6933.13judgment.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6933 OF 2013

¶3

Anil Vitthal Pawar, Aged 40 years, residing at Swapna Vihar Complex, Plot No.4, Zapwadi Road, Yashwant Nagar Road, Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶7

2 Sagar Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, Sinnar, through its Secretary, having its office at Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.

¶8

3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Dist. Nashik.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar with Helan Koli-Mandlik for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 28 FEBRUARY 2014 PRONOUNCED ON : 21 APRIL 2014.

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

2 wp-6933.13judgment.sxw

¶16

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶17

Learned counsel for respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶18

2 In the above Petition, the Petitioner's caste claim, being “Thakur”-Scheduled Tribe category (S.T. Category), is invalidated by the impugned order dated 6 October 2006. Therefore, the present petition. However, the Petitioner is willing to give up his caste claim/issue, but submitted to grant protection as granted to others in similarly situated matters. This Court on 1 August 2013, has also by ad-interim relief granted protection in terms of prayer (b), not to terminate the services of the Petitioner on the ground of failure to produce the Caste Validity Certificate. That has been in force till this date. The material placed on record and so also the observation given, apart from various documents though to some extent support the case that he belongs to “Thakur” , he unable to prove the same.

¶19

3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relying

¶20

on Dattu Namdeo Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra¹ , Kavita

¶21

1 (2012) 1 SCC 549

¶22

2/4

¶23

3 wp-6933.13judgment.sxw

¶24

Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra and ors² , A. P. Ramtekkar vs.

¶25

State of Maharashtra³ , and Exe. E. Ehv. C. Div. No.1, MSETCL, Nagapur & Anr. Vs. Jyotsna Bhondelal Shriwas & ors.⁴ praying that his services be protected and an appropriate order 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, as the Petitioner is still in service.

¶26

3 The following is the chart which shows the Petitioner's

¶27

joining of service, caste claim, the continuity of service.

¶28

Sr. No.	W.P. No.	Name of the Petitioner	Working Since	Respondent No.	Caste claimed	now	Interim protection granted.
1	WP/6933/ 2013	A.V. Pawar	18.08.1997	WITH RESPONDENT NO. 2	Caste given up	claim	Ad-Interim order is in force

¶29

4 However, the earlier benefits, we are restricting to the date

¶30

referred to in the Constitution Bench Judgment in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.⁵ i.e. 28.11.2000 and followed in

¶31

other matters, even by the Supreme Court.

¶32

2 2012 (5) Mh. L. J. 92

¶33

3 2013 (2) Mh. L. J. 415

¶34

4 Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 12905/2013 dated 4/3/2014

¶35

5 (2001) 1 SCC 4

¶36

3/4

¶37

4 wp-6933.13judgment.sxw

¶38

5 In view of reasoning given in Writ Petition No.

¶39

3014 of 2004 - Rakesh S. Dafade vs. State of Maharashtra dated

¶40

04.04.2014 , of Division Bench of this Court and other connected groups as the facts and circumstances are same and similar and so also the issues those- reasonings be read and referred as part of the

¶41

present judgment.

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

a) The Petitioner/employee is entitled for protection

¶44

in service with continuity of service.

¶45

b) The Petitioner would not be entitled to any caste benefits on the basis of earlier caste/tribe which he claimed.

¶46

c) The benefits, if any, granted after 28.11.2000 being belonging to “Thakur”, the Respondents/ employer/management are at liberty to withdraw the benefits.

¶47

d) All the parties to cooperate accordingly.

¶48

e) Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶49

f) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶51

4/4

Anil Vitthal Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Vitthal Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education 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

K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited and Anr. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dattatray Chandrakant Vasolkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Mansing Ganpat Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Mansing Ganpat Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Kum. Sunita Basappa Koli Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.