Partly allowed

Yuvraj Atmaram Pathakrao v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2015WP/1661/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The respondent's challenge to the petitioner's relief was allowed to the extent of protecting the petitioner's service. The petitioner gave up his Scheduled Tribe claim and was appointed by the Electricity Board. The court applied the law laid down by the Full Bench in Arun Vishwanath Sonone to protect the petitioner's service. The petitioner must give an undertaking not to claim Scheduled Tribe b

What did the court decide?

Service of petitioner protected subject to his undertaking not to claim Scheduled Tribe benefits in promotions or otherwise after 28.11.2000.

Yuvraj Atmaram Pathakrao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 ) wp1661.02

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1661 OF 2002

¶4

Yuvraj Atmaram Pathakrao...PETITIONER
Aged-26 years, Occu-Service,
R/o. At & Post. Motegaon,
Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

2. The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, MS, Aurangabad.

¶9

3. The Tahasildar & Tq. Executive Magistrate, Latur.

¶10

4. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board (Through Its Executive Engineer) O & M Division Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

¶11

Mr.U.R.Awate h/f Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the
petitioner.
MR.S.S.Tope, AGP for the respondent/State.
Mr.A.B. Tele, Advocate for R-2.

¶12

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
A.M. BADAR,JJ.
DATED :19.06.2015

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per: A.M.Badar, J.]

¶14

1.Heard learned counsel appearing for respective
parties and perused the impugned order as well as record
made available.

¶15

2.By this petition, the petitioner is challenging
order dated 31.01.2002, passed by respondent No.2-
Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the
petitioner for “Koli Mahadeo” Scheduled Tribe.

¶16

3.We heard learned counsel Mr.U.R. Awate,
appearing for the petitioner. He fairly stated that, now
the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his claim
for “Koli Mahadeo” scheduled tribe. Instead, he is giving
up that claim and is praying for service protection.

¶17

4.The petitioner came to be appointed vide order
dated 07.08.1997 as 'Electrical Operator' with respondent
No. 4-Electricity Board. The post was reserved for the
Scheduled Tribe category. Therefore the Tribe certificate
of the petitioner was sent for scrutiny. By the impugned
order respondent No.2-Committee and Vigilance Cell,
invalidated the Tribe claim of the petitioner.
Undisputedly the petitioner is in continuous service from
the year 1997.

¶18

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the impugned order invalidating the Tribe Claim of the petitioner. There is no observation made by the Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order regarding falsity of the claim for “Koli Mahadeo” schedule tribe made by the petitioner. We have not found anything in the impugned order suggesting that the petitioner has secured the Tribe certificate fraudulently or that he has gained benefit for Scheduled Tribe fraudulently. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on the basis of documents in respect of his father as well as on for the reason of failure of affinity test. Hence, by applying the judgment of full bench in the matter of Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(I)Mh.L.J.457, it would be necessary to protect the service of the petitioner, as he has relinquished his claim as “Koli Mahadeo”.

¶19

6. In view of forgoing discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The service of the petitioner is protected as he was appointed on 07.08.1997, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, in the matter of Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(I)Mh.L.J.457

¶20

(Supra) on the petitioner's furnishing an undertaking before this Court as well as his employer, to the effect that neither he nor his progeny will secure any benefit available to the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner shall not take any advantage in terms of promotion or otherwise after 28.11.2000 in service on the basis of his claim for Scheduled Tribe category. If the petitioner tenders such undertaking within 15 days from today before this Court, his service shall be protected.

¶21

7.With these directions Rule is made absolute. No
order as to costs.

¶22

[A.M. BADAR,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]

¶23

VishalK/wp1661.02

Yuvraj Atmaram Pathakrao v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Atmaram Pathakrao v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Nivruti Ranjeet Darkunde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sk Ismail Mujawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad Vs Ajeet Seeds Ltd.

Faraz Mohd.Khan Niyaz Mohd.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakant Tukaram Firode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikas Ratnappa Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others