Dismissed

Vidyadhar Sudamrao Paikrao v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2019PIL/108/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation challenging relaxation of caste validity certificate requirements for Scheduled Tribes appointed prior to 1995. Court dismissed the petition as the Supreme Court decided the legal position requiring scrutiny and forfeiture of benefits on invalidation.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation dismissed; respondents to abide by Supreme Court ruling.

Vidyadhar Sudamrao Paikrao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.108 OF 2013

¶4

Vidyadhar Sudamrao Paikrao, Age : 36 years, Occu. Legal Practitioner and Social Worker, R/o Bhanudasnagar, Aurangabad, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

The Secretary, Social Justice and Cultural Activities and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Krishna Rodge, Advocate holding for Mr. Pratap G. Rodge, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent

¶9

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ & R.G. AVACHAT, J.

DATE: 23.09.2019

PIL108-2013.doc

- 2 -

PER COURT :

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2] The issue raised in the instant petition filed in public interest concerns Govt. Resolution dated 15^th June, 1995 and the Circular dated 18^th May, 2013, relaxing the requirement of submitting caste validity certificates for members of the Scheduled Tribes, appointed prior to 15^th June, 1995, modified by the Circular dated 18^th May, 2013 by shifting the date.

¶16

3] However, the issue need not be decided by us in light of the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2017 (8) SCC 670 Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. The said decision holds that caste validity certificates have to be scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee and if invalidated by it, the beneficiary has to forfeit all benefits obtained on the strength of the certificate which has been invalidated.

¶17

4] Thus, the law being set at rest by the Supreme Court, we simply observe that the respondents would abide by the dictum of the law

¶18

PIL108-2013.doc

¶19

- 3 -

¶20

laid down in the afore-noted decision and would comply with the same.

¶21

5] The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.

¶22

6] No costs.

¶23

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

npj/PIL108-2013.doc

Vidyadhar Sudamrao Paikrao v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyadhar Sudamrao Paikrao v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandu Bhimrao Patil and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Mr. Shrimant S. Bansode Vs the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Harish Shrirang Daware Vs the Union of India and Others

Shivaji Anantrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramkrishna Bhagwan Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abdul Munaf Abdul Raheman Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abhijit Ramesh Mapari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash Baburao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ratnadeep Sidramappa Utage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narayan Ramrao Upare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Kisan Khillare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gangadhar Maroti Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandu Rajaram Tompe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabhakar Rukhmanrao Kulthe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.