Disposed

Sunil Prabhakar Koli v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Jan 2018WP/589/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner to cooperate in pending tribal validation proceedings. It ordered the respondent/employer not to take adverse action against the petitioner until the validation is concluded, unless the petitioner seeks adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued. Pending validation proceedings, the employer must not take adverse action against the petitioner unless an adjournment is sought by the petitioner.

Sunil Prabhakar Koli Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 589.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 589 OF 2018

¶4

Sunil Prabhakar Koli .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Sagar S. Phatale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for All Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND ARUN M. DHAVALE, JJ. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2018.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. Issue notice to respondents. The learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for all respondents.

¶11

Mr. Phatale, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, validation proceeding in respect of tribe claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondent No. 2/Committee. In the interregnum the respondent No. 3 has issued notice to the petitioner to produce validity certificate, else adverse action would be taken.

¶12

Mr. Patil, the learned Additional Government Pleader

¶13

2 wp 589.18

¶14

submits that, consistently the petitioner remained absent before the Committee and lastly on 20^th September, 2013, the petitioner sought time and thereafter did not remain present before the Committee. As such, the committee could not decide the said proceeding.

¶15

When the petitioner seeks protection of this Court, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to co-operate in expeditious disposal of the proceeding. The petitioner cannot claim equitable relief, if the petitioner is deliberately prolonging the validation proceeding.

¶16

Mr. Phatale, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioner would remain present for hearing before the Committee on 02.02.2018 i. e. the date already fixed by the Committee.

¶17

We make it clear that, the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment and shall argue the matter on the said date before the Committee or on the date that would be convenient to the Committee. However, it will not be open for the petitioner to seek adjournment. The Committee shall decide the validation proceeding by end of March 2018.

¶18

Till the validation proceeding is decided, the

¶19

3 wp 589.18

¶20

respondent/employer shall not take any adverse action against the petitioner. Of course, if, the petitioner seeks adjournment in the matter, the respondent/employer would be entitled to take further course of action and depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee in the validation proceeding, the employer may take further course of action. The writ petition accordingly is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

[ARUN M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶22

bsb/Jan. 17

Sunil Prabhakar Koli v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Prabhakar Koli 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Authorised Officer Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Shivshakti Kraft Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Others

Martha Devidas Rathod Vs Scheduled Caste Denotified Tribe through Its Member Secretary and Anothers

Adarsha Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Harangul through Its Secretary M N Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Umesh Baburao Thale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinayak Uttamrao Banchod Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Deputy Secretary and Others

Krishna Sahebraoji Patil Dongaonkar and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.