Partly allowed

Vijay Rangrao Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2016WP/1982/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an ST/backward class employee, challenged threat of termination due to non-submission of caste validity certificate. Court relied on Full Bench precedent. Ordered submission of certificate within weeks; forbade adverse action during committee determination process.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit caste certificate and documents within four weeks; order to forward proposal to committee; no adverse action pending determination.

Vijay Rangrao Pawar Vs the State of Mah and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 1982/11

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1982/2011

¶5

Vijay Rangrao Pawar.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...

¶9

 .....

¶10

Shri N.L. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M.B. Bharaswadkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶11

 .....

¶12

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.L. WADANE, JJ. DATE: 20.08.2016

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

1]Shri N.L. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioner states that the petitioner belongs to
scheduled tribe category. The said caste is subsequently

¶16

converted into special backward class category. The
caste of the petitioner is recognized as a special
backward class. The learned counsel submits that since

¶17

1990, the petitioner is regularly working. For the first

¶18

time, on 29.6.2010, the respondent no.3 – bank i.e. the

¶19

employer of the petitioner issued notice directing the
petitioner to submit the caste validity certificate as

¶20

WP 1982/11

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

per the norms of the service. The learned counsel
submits that the respondent – bank did not consider the
Government resolution dated 15.6.1995. The learned

¶23

counsel submits that the respondent no.3 – bank issued
notice dated 17.2.2011 directing the petitioner to submit
the validity certificate on or before 28.2.2011 failing
which the services of the petitioner would be terminated.
The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is still
in service and the services of the petitioner are
protected by virtue of Government resolution dated
15.6.1995.

¶24

2]Shri S.S. Patil,learned counsel for the respondent
no.3 submits that the petitioner has secured employment
from the reserved category. Unless the validity is
submitted, the petitioner cannot seek continuation and
protection in service. The notice has been validly
issued.

¶25

3] We have heard the learned AGP for the State also. 4] The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun

¶26

Vishwanath Sonone v. The State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J., 457 , has held that if the person is appointed from the reserved category prior to

¶27

WP 1982/11

¶28

- 3 -

¶29

the year 2000 and even if his caste claim is invalidated
on any ground except fraud, his services are protected.
The Full Bench held that it is obligatory for the person
who has sought employment from the reserved category to
submit the proposal for validation before the committee.
5]Considering the above, we pass the following order.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner shall submit the caste certificate,
to which he belongs, with the respondent no.3 alongwith
other relevant documents, within a period of four weeks
from today. On receipt of the said certificate and the
documents from the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall
forward the proposal to the concerned committee for
determination of the caste claim. Till the caste claim
of the petitioner is decided by the committee, no adverse
action shall be taken by the respondents against the
petitioner on the ground of non-submission of validity
certificate. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
with no order as to costs.

¶32

(K.L. WADANE, J.) ndk/ c208167.doc

Vijay Rangrao Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Rangrao Pawar v. the State of Mah 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

Kalyan Dattatraya Chaudhari and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Employees Provident Fund Organization through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Others Vs Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. through the Chief Executive Officer and Another

Suryakant Girjaram Ubale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Badsaha Anjuman Ishate Taleem Shikshan Sanstha Ryp (Marathi) D.Ed College through President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Babulal Devare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Prakash Kotumbe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.