Allowed

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

Bombay HC21 Apr 2014WP/7331/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the invalidation of the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe 'Thakur' caste claim, the Court granted protection against termination of services and continuity of service, while denying further caste benefits based on the claim.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to protection in service with continuity of service but is not entitled to caste benefits on the basis of the earlier claimed caste/tribe.

Mansing Ganpat Jadhav Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp-7331.13judgment.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7331 OF 2013

¶3

Mansing Ganpat Jadhav, Plot No.40, Ingawale Colony, Phulewadi, Kolhapur416 010

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶7

2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

¶8

Committee, Pune Division, Pune, through its Deputy Director ® and Member Secretary, having its office at 28 Queen's Garden, Pune411 001.

¶9

3 Dy. Director of Foresh, Kolhapur Division, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶16

1/4

¶17

2 wp-7331.13judgment.sxw

¶18

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

¶19

2 In the above Petition, the Petitioner's caste claim, being

¶20

“Thakur”Scheduled Tribe category (S.T. Category), is invalidated by the impugned order dated 29 June 2013. 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 13 August 2013, has also by adinterim relief granted protection in terms of prayer (e), not to terminate the services of the Petitioner on the basis of impugned order 29 June 2013. 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.

¶21

3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relying on Dattu Namdeo Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra¹ , Kavita

¶22

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

¶23

1 (2012) 1 SCC 549

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

3 wp-7331.13judgment.sxw

¶27

State of Maharashtra³ , and Exe. E. Ehv. C. Div. No.1, MSETCL,

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Sr. No.	W.P. No.	Name of the Petitioner	Working Since	Respondent No.	Caste claimed	now	Interim protection granted.
1	WP/7331/ 2013	M.G. Jadhav	19.11.1983	WITH RESPONDENT NO. 3	Caste given up	claim	AdInterim order is in force

¶32

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

¶33

referred to in the Constitution Bench Judgment in State of

¶34

Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.⁵ i.e. 28.11.2000 and followed in other matters, even by the Supreme Court.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

5 (2001) 1 SCC 4

¶38

3/4

¶39

4 wp-7331.13judgment.sxw

¶40

5 In view of reasoning given in Writ Petition No.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

present judgment.

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

a) The Petitioner/employee is entitled for protection

¶46

in service with continuity of service.

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

d) All the parties to cooperate accordingly. e) Rule is made absolute in above terms. f) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

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

¶51

4/4

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansing Ganpat Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, through 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

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.

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