Allowed

Sandip Bharatsing Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Jun 2016WP/1478/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by an Accounts Assistant seeking regularization of services and regularization of pay-scale pending a tribe validation claim. The High Court directed the respondent to decide the claim within eight months and regularize the petitioner subject to fulfillment of requirements.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondent to decide the tribe validation claim within eight months and to regularize the petitioner's services and grant the prescribed pay-scale subject to fulfillment of requireme

Sandip Bharatsing Thakur Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 1478/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1478/2016

¶5

Sandip s/o Bharatsing Thakur,
age 35 yrs., occu.service as
Accounts Assistant,
r/o House No.2549/2, Aadarsh
Residency, Badnapur Tq.Badnapur.
Dist.Jalna.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Energy Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32 and two others.

¶9

...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri A.H. Koralkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.R. Kale, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Respondent no.3 served.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 29.06.2016

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

1]The petitioner claims to belong to Thakur scheduled
tribe category. He has been appointed as Accounts
Assistant in the office of the respondent no.3 as against
a seat earmarked for scheduled tribe category in the year
2001. The tribe validation claim in respect of the
certificate issued to the petitioner is pending
consideration with the respondent no.2 since July, 2012
and no decision as yet has been recorded by the scrutiny

¶16

WP 1478/16

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

committee. As a result of failure of the scrutiny
committee to take decision, the employer has not
regularized the services of the petitioner.

¶19

2]This petition can be disposed of by issuing
directions to the respondent no.2 to take decision in
respect of the certificate issued to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period
of eight months from today.

¶20

3]The respondent no.3, though served, has not caused
appearance. The respondent no.3 is directed to regularize
the services of the petitioner subject to decision in
respect of validation claim pending with the scrutiny
committee if the petitioner fulfills all other
requirements prescribed by the employer and shall grant
him pay-scale prescribed for the regular appointee.
4]The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no
order as to costs.

¶21

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)

¶22

ndk/ c2961612.doc

Sandip Bharatsing Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Bharatsing Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Ganpati Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Jagannath Bolelu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sadhu Mahadu Chivale Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Rashid Mahinuddin and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Deorao Hiwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shantabai Ramdas Koshti Vs the Union of India and Others