Allowed

Manojkumar Indrasing Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Jun 2016WP/4450/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted relief to a Shikshan Sevak whose services were terminated while a caste certificate validation remained pending. The court directed the scrutiny committee to decide within six months, quashed the termination order, directed reinstatement, and ordered payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Quashed termination order; directed immediate reinstatement; directed payment of unpaid remuneration from date of appointment; directed scrutiny committee to decide validation within six months.

Manojkumar Indrasing Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 4450/16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.4450/2016

¶6

Manojkumar s/o Indrasing Patil,
age 32 yrs., occu.service,
r/o Mahalaxmi Colony, Bhadgaon
Tq.Bhadgaon Dist.Jalgaon.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra, (Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)

¶10

2] The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, Committee No.2, Dhule.

¶11

3] The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik.

¶12

4] The Head Mistress, Chhatre New English School, Manmad Dist.Nashik.

¶13

5] The President / Secretary, Shriram Education Society, Manmad. Dist.Nashik.

¶14

...Respondents...

¶15

 .....

¶16

Shri Vijay A. Dhakne, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri P.S. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri P.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5.

¶17

 .....

¶18

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

¶19

DATE: 24.06.2016

¶20

WP 4450/16

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Borde, J.) :

¶23

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule

¶24

made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for
final disposal.

¶25

2]the petitioner claims to belong to Rajput Bhamta –
Vimukta Jati. He has been appointed as Shikshan Sevak as
against a seat earmarked for Vimukta Jati category by an
order dated 10.7.2013 by the respondent no.5.

¶26

Immediately after appointment of the petitioner, the
caste certificate has been referred to the scrutiny
committee for verification. The petitioner contends that
the validation claim referred to the committee is pending
since 16.9.2013 and no decision has been rendered as yet.

¶27

3]As a result of failure of the petitioner to submit
the validation certificate, his services have been
terminated by the management with effect from 1.4.2016.

¶28

The petitioner in fact approached this Court on 12.4.2016
and this Court was pleased to direct protection of
services of the petitioner by way of an interim order
issued on 21.4.2016. However, before the order was

¶29

WP 4450/16

¶30

served on the respondents, the services of the petitioner
were already terminated.

¶31

4]It is not a matter of dispute that the validation

¶32

claim in respect of the certificate issued to the
petitioner is pending with the scrutiny committee. In
the facts of this case, the scrutiny committee needs to

¶33

be directed to take decision on the validation claim
pertaining to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of six months from today
and it is accordingly directed.

¶34

5]Since the appointment of the petitioner has been
terminated on account of his failure to submit the

¶35

validation certificate and as we are issuing the orders
to the scrutiny committee to take decision in respect of
the validation claim, the order issued by the management
i.e. respondent nos.4 & 5 directing termination of

¶36

services of the petitioner need to be quashed and set
aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside.
The respondent nos.4 & 5 are directed to reinstate the
petitioner in employment immediately. It is needless to

¶37

clarify that the reinstatement of the petitioner is
subject to outcome of the decision by the scrutiny

¶38

WP 4450/16

¶39

- 4 -

¶40

committee in respect of validation claim of the
petitioner pending with the committee.

¶41

6]It is informed that the petitioner has not been paid
remuneration for the post of Shikshan Sevak from the date
of his appointment. The respondent no.3 has approved the

¶42

services of the petitioner. The school receives the

¶43

grant-in-aid. In this view of the matter, the respondent

¶44

nos.3 & 5 are directed to disburse the remuneration to

¶45

the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak from the date of his
appointment till today within a period of eight weeks
from today.

¶46

7]The writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs.

¶47

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

¶48

ndk/ c2461611.doc

Manojkumar Indrasing Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manojkumar Indrasing Patil 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

Dinesh Anandrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganesh Haribhau Khandve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Khushbirsing Basatsing Bindra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baburao Bapurao Iylane Vs Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and Anr.

Devidas Shrawan Wani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Salomi Vijaykumar Trubhuvan through Guardian Vijaykumar Sukdeo Ttribhuvan Vs Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Nashik