Partly allowed

Amin Shah Hussain Shah v. Caste Scrutiny Committee for Social Welfare Department, Akola Division and 2 Others

Bombay HC29 Jun 2016WP/491/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged caste claim invalidation by the respondent Committee. Bench reserved order after counsel adjournment. Committee accepted readiness to re-examine. Petitioner's protected employment held during pendency. Impugned order quashed with direction to re-verify caste within one year citing inability to reopen brother's case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside. Petitioner permitted to re-verify caste claim within one year. Protected employment to remain during proceedings. No costs.

Amin Shah Hussain Shah Vs Caste Scrutiny… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/3

¶2

2906wp491.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.491 OF 2015

¶5

(Amin Shah Hussain Shah vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee for Social Welfare Department and others)

¶6

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶9

DATED : JUNE 29, 2016

¶10

On 12/4/2016, this Court has passed the following order :

¶11

Heard Shri V.R. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P.D. Rane, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, for some time.

¶12

The question is whether R. & P. of Case No.2031, in which the validity has been given to Hamid Shah Hussain Shah, has been considered by respondent no.1 Committee while invalidating caste claim of the petitioner.

¶13

The learned AGP is seeking time of two weeks to produce the relevant records and to file an affidavit, if necessary.

¶14

Adjourned accordingly. List the matter on 26.04.2016.”

¶15

Ms. Rane, learned Assistant Government

¶16

Pleader for respondent no.1, has produced before this Court communication dated 22/6/2016 forwarded to

¶17

2906wp491.15

¶18

2/3

¶19

the office of Government Pleader stating that original records of caste verification case of Hamid Shah Hussain Shah are being traced out. In the said communication, respondent no.1 Committee has expressed readiness and willingness to re-examine the caste claim of petitioner as also caste claim of his brother Hamid Shah Hussain Shah.

¶20

Adv. V.R.Chaudhari appearing for petitioner is stated to be not available. Similarly, Adv. S.V. Purohit, who appears for respondent nos.2 and 3, is occupied elsewhere.

¶21

We find that on 2/2/2015, this Court has granted ad interim relief and protected employment of petitioner.

¶22

Hamid Shah Hussain Shah is not party before this Court. As such, this Court cannot permit respondent no.1 Committee to re-open validity given to him.

¶23

However, as respondent no.1 Committee is ready and willing to re-examine case of present petitioner, impugned order dated 14.10.2014/ 5.1.2015 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.1 Committee is permitted to re-verify caste claim of petitioner in accordance with law in next one year. The petitioner shall appear before Committee on 19/7/2016 and abide by its further instructions in the

2906wp491.15

3/3

matter.

Needless to mention that employment of petitioner cannot be dispensed with during pendency of proceedings before Caste Scrutiny Committee. The writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

khj

Amin Shah Hussain Shah v. Caste Scrutiny Committee for Social Welfare Department, Akola Division and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amin Shah Hussain Shah v. Caste Scrutiny Committee for Social Welfare Department, Akola Division and 2 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

Fanindrakumar Laxman Baghele Vs Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer, Bhandara and Others

Sushma Ganpatrao Shendre (Sushma Vinodrao Raikwar) Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Department of School Education and 4 Others

Ku. Jaya Pralhadrao Dhakite Vs Shir Shiwaji Education Society, Amravati through Its Secretary, Shri v. G. Bhamburkar and Another

Shivaji Kashiram Raut and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principal Secretary, and Others

Ajit Bhaiyasaheb Mulik Vs Nagpur Improvement Trush through Its Chairman, Nagpur and 2 Others

Dr. Nilkanth S/O Markand Nimdeokar and 29 Others Vs the Govt. of Maha. through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai