Disposed

Sheetal D/O Satish Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2019WP/3510/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an ST-administrative officer, approached the Court after being called to validate her caste certificate, facing fear of termination. The bench ensured her caste claim is decided within one month while imposing a stay on coercive action for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Victor directed to decide the petitioner’s caste claim within one month and to refrain from taking coercive action against her for two weeks if any adverse order is passed during this period.

Sheetal D/O Satish Thakur Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

5 wp 3510.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3510 of 2019

¶3

Sheetal d/o. Satish Thakur …..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. …..Respondents

¶4

Mr. Y. S. Chandrakantrao, advocate for the petitioner. Smt. M. S. Srivastava, AGP for the State.

¶5

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 4^th APRIL, 2019.

¶6

P. C. :

¶7

The petitioner obtained caste certificate that she belongs to 'Thakur – Scheduled Tribe' category and her claim for verification of the said certificate is pending before respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee since 2006. In the year 2015, the petitioner is appointed as administrative officer of respondent No.4 against the post reserved for ST category. The petitioner received an impugned communication dated 1^st February, 2019, from respondent Nos.3 and 4 thereby directing her to produce a copy of the caste validity certificate before 31^st March, 2019. The petitioner apprehending termination of her services approached this Court seeking direction to respondent No.2 to decide her caste claim expeditiously.

1/2

Shubhada S Kadam

5 wp 3510.19.doc

Learned AGP placed on record communication dated 4^th April, 2019, received from the Secretary of respondent No.2. It is stated in the said communication that the petitioner's caste claim would be decided within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶12

In the light of the above, we dispose of this petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's claim within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶13

We also direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned communication during the pendency of the said claim of the petitioner and, in the event, any adverse order against the petitioner's interest is passed, then the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the same to the petitioner.

¶14

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶16

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Sheetal D/O Satish Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheetal D/O Satish Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabina Ishtiyak Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shreepati Hari Jawal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Madhukar Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Peter Pasku Tulo Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Rajesh Janardan Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh C. Bawa Vs Union of India and Ors.