Allowed

Shahoobai Baliram Narlawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Aug 2016WP/8160/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns a Gram Sevak appointed on contract for a reserved Scheduled Tribe seat. The petitioner sought regularization of her services pending verification of her tribe certificate by the competent committee. The Court directed the committee to decide the verification within one year and the employer to consider regularization within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the verification committee to decide the tribe certificate application within one year and the employer to consider regularization within four months without rejecting it solely due to no

Shahoobai Baliram Narlawar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP.8160.16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8160 OF 2016

¶5

Shahoobai D/o Baliram Narlawar
Age : 28 years, Occu : Service
R/o Markhel, Tq. Degloor
District : Nanded.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nanded Dist. Nanded.

¶10

3 The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Degloor Dist. Nanded.

¶11

4 The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad.

¶12

...Respondents...

¶13

 .....

¶14

Shri.S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri.S.S. Dande, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri.S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent nos.2&3.

¶15

 .....

¶16

CORAM: R. M. Borde, &
 K. L. Wadane, JJ.

¶17

DATE: 01.08.2016

¶18

WP.8160.16

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Borde, J.) :

¶21

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

¶22

2]The petitioner claims to belong to Koli Mahadev –
scheduled tribe and is in receipt of the certificate
issued by the competent authority certifying that she
belongs to aforesaid reserved category.

¶23

3]The petitioner has been appointed as a Gram Sevak on
contract basis by respondent no.2 as against a seat
reserved for scheduled tribe category since 3.1.2012. As
a result of failure of the petitioner to tender tribe
validation certificate, her services have not been

¶24

regularized and she has not been issued an order

¶25

appointing her as a regular Gram Sevak in terms of Clause
(6) of the appointment order issued on 3.1.2012. The

¶26

claim for verification of the tribe certificate issued to
the petitioner is stated to be pending since 2012 with
the respondent no.4 – committee.

¶27

4]In the facts of this case, this petition can be
disposed of with direction to the respondent no.4 –

¶28

WP.8160.16

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

committee to take decision on the tribe certificate
verification proposal tendered by the petitioner pending

¶31

with the committee as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of one year from today, and it
is accordingly directed. In the meanwhile, subject to
fulfillment of necessary requirements, the respondent

¶32

no.2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for
regularization of her services as a Gram Sevak and the
claim of the petitioner for regularization shall not be
turned down merely on the ground of her failure to submit

¶33

tribe validation certificate. It is stated by the
petitioner that the tribe certificate issued to her is
produced for verification to the scrutiny committee and

¶34

as such it would be sufficient compliance if the

¶35

petitioner tenders a certified / attested copy of the
tribe certificate to the employer. The respondent nos.1

¶36

to 3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for
regularization as expeditiously as possible and

¶37

preferably within a period of four months from today. It

¶38

would be needless to mention that monetary benefits, if
any, accruable to the petitioner on issuance of the order
of regularization, shall be paid to her expeditiously.

¶39

WP.8160.16 - 4 - 5] The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

ndk/ c181615.doc

Shahoobai Baliram Narlawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahoobai Baliram Narlawar 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

Vitthal Sayanna Dawewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Girnai Paryavaran Sanrakshan Va Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha through Dhondu Bajirao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babanrao Dashrath Dongre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balu Maroti Isankarle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ambeshwar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patasanstha Ltd. through Its Secretary B C Kokate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhanudas Laxman Sakhare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others