Disposed

Kaviraj Shrikrushna Gathe v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Electricity Transmission, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2019WP/7993/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the relevant Committee to decide the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim within six months. It held that the employer erred in issuing a notice restraining the petitioner from duty during the pendency and directed that the notice remain inactive for six months. Further protection was granted for four weeks post-decision if rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner: Committee to decide claim within 6 months; Employer to wait 6 months; 4 weeks protection granted if claim rejected.

Kaviraj Shrikrushna Gathe Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

wp7993.doc

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.7993 OF 2019

¶6

Kaviraj Shrikrushna Gathe
vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.C.K.Bhangoji I/b Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the
Petitioner

¶11

Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for the respondent-State

¶12

CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND
 SMT. BHARATI DANGRE,JJ.
 DATE : JULY 19, 2019

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1The petitioner, Technician working with
respondent No.2 has approached this Court seeking
limited relief of direction to the respondent No.3
Committee to verify his claim of belonging to Thakur
Scheduled Tribe within stipulated period. A
statement is made by the petitioner that he has
stated his claim before the respondent No.3-
Committee on 26th July 2018 through the employer,
respondent No.2.

¶15

According to Shri Bhangoji the employer is
conscious of the fact that the claim of the
petitioner is pending with the Respondent No.3-
Committee. Despite this on 9thJuly 2019 the
respondent No.2 has issued notice directing
production of caste validity certificate before and
he was restrained from attending the duties in case

¶16

wp7993.doc

¶17

¶18

of failure to produce the same.

¶19

2All the learned counsel for the parties at ad
idem that the claim of the petitioner is pending
before the Committee. We therefore deem it expedient
to direct the respondent No.3-Committee to decide
the claim within a period of six months. The learned
AGP is directed to communicate this order to the
respondent No.3-Committee and also to intimate that
no further extension would be granted for deciding
the claim of the petitioner.

¶20

3Since the claim of the petitioner is pending
with the respondent No.3-Committee, we find that the
respondent No.2 has committed an error in issuing
the impugned notice restraining the petitioner from
discharging the duties.

¶21

In such circumstances, till the claim of the
petitioner is pending with the respondent No.3-
Committee, respondent No.2 shall not act upon the
impugned notice for a period of six months. The
petitioner undertakes to appear before the
respondent No.3-Committee on 29th July 2019.

¶22

4In case the claim of the petitioner is decided
against him, we grant protection to the petitioner
for further period of four weeks. With this
directions, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

(SMT.BHARATI DANGRE,J.)

¶24

 (RANJIT MORE,J.)

Kaviraj Shrikrushna Gathe v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Electricity Transmission, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaviraj Shrikrushna Gathe v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Electricity Transmission, Mumbai and Ors.

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

Patel Profile Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Sudin Mohan Gawade Vs Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd. and Anr.

Arrow Engineering Ltd. through Vineet Ramesh Malhotra and Anr. Vs the Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Mr. Sukdeo Chatrulal Darveshi Vs the Vasai Virar City Municipal Corp. and Ors.

M/S Thackers Caterers through Saurin Shah Poa Holder Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Najma@Rasidakhatun Naim Khan@Manna Shelaiwali Bhabhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.