Partly allowed

Sidhling Kisan Mangire v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Aug 2016WP/4597/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined challenges to a caste certificate overturning order by a scrutiny committee. While confirming the invalidation due to lack of illegality, the Court relied on a judicial undertaking not to claim SC benefits to quash the termination order and restore employment until superannuation.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the termination order; deemed petitioner in employment until superannuation; entitled to retirement benefits and salary until termination date.

Sidhling Kisan Mangire Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 4597/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.4597/2016

¶6

Sidhling Kisan Mangire,
Age 58 years, Occ.Service,
R/o.Kusum Nagar, Bhoom,Tq.Bhoom,
Dist.Osmanabad.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Social Welfare Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

2] The Divisional Caste Scrutiny,Committee No. 2,Aurangabad Division, Latur.

¶11

3] The Collector, Collector Office, Osmanabad.

¶12

4] The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office Kallam, Dist.Osmanabad.

¶13

5] The President, Shankrao Patil Junior College, Bhoom, Tq.Bhoom,Dist.Osmanabad,

¶14

6) The Principal, Shankrao Patil Junior College, Bhoom, Tq,Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad.

¶15

...Respondents...

¶16

 .....

¶17

Shri E.S. Murge, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri P.S. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4.
Shri K.R. Doke, Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 6.

¶18

 .....

¶19

WP 4597/16

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

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

¶22

DATE: 11.08.2016

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENTN (Per Borde, J.) :

¶24

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

¶25

made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken for final
hearing at the stage of admission.

¶26

2]The petitioner claims to belong to Lingder caste,

¶27

which is included in scheduled caste category. The
petitioner received the caste certificate issued by the
competent authority certifying that he belongs to the
aforesaid caste, which is part of scheduled caste
category. On the strength of the caste certificate

¶28

issued to the petitioner, the petitioner on his selection

¶29

was appointed to the post of junior Lecturer in the

¶30

college run by the respondent no.5 – institution. The
caste certificate issued to the petitioner was referred

¶31

for verification to the scrutiny committee. However, the

¶32

scrutiny committee has directed invalidation of the caste
certificate by order dated 28.1.2016 and the said adverse

¶33

decision of the scrutiny committee is subjected to

¶34

WP 4597/16

¶35

- 3 -

¶36

challenge in this petition.

¶37

3]We have perused the judgment delivered by the caste
scrutiny committee and we do not find any illegality or
irregularity so as to call interference in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The decision rendered by the scrutiny committee
directing invalidation of the caste certificate issued to
the petitioner dated 28.1.2016 stands confirmed.

¶38

4] The petitioner claims that he was inducted in employment on 13.8.1995 i.e. prior to 2000 and as such in view of the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra & others reported at 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (FB) , the request made

¶39

by the petitioner in the instant petition deserves to be
accepted.

¶40

undertaking assuring not to claim any benefits as
belonging to scheduled caste category. It is further
stated in the undertaking that he is ready to give up the
claim raised by him as belonging to scheduled caste
category. The undertaking presented by the petitioner is

¶41

taken on record and marked as Exhibit X for

¶42

WP 4597/16

¶43

- 4 -

¶44

identification.

¶45

7]The order passed by the management directing
termination of services of the petitioner on 28.3.2016 is
quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed
to be in employment until the date of superannuation i.e.
30.4.2016. The petitioner shall be deemed to be entitled

¶46

to claim the retirement benefits accruable to him in
accordance with law and the relevant regulations. The
management – respondent nos.5 & 6 undertake to submit the
proposal of the petitioner for grant of pension to
appropriate authorities. The petitioner shall be
entitled to claim salary until the date of order of
termination i.e. 28.3.2016 and he shall not claim salary
for a period between 29.3.2016 till 30.4.2016 i.e. the
date of superannuation. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.

¶47

 (K.L. WADANE, J.)

¶48

ndk/ c1181614.doc

Sidhling Kisan Mangire v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhling Kisan Mangire 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjur Pragat Shetkari Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. through Its Manager K C Tilekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Himmatrao Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Durgabai Parmeshwar Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Village Panchayat Kesapur through Its Authorized Representative Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajendra Ganpat Ghongade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Indus Towers Limited New Delhi Having Its Office Pune Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others