Allowed

Dyaneshwar Bajirao Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Jan 2020WP/184/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders placing the petitioner on a supernumerary post due to pending validation proceedings. The Court quashed the impugned orders, directed the Committee to decide the petition merits within six months, and prohibited adverse action based solely on the delay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 31.12.2019 and 06.12.2019 quashed; Committee directed to decide validation proceeding within 6 months; no adverse action on account of pendency.

Dyaneshwar Bajirao Nikam Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

25.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

25 WRIT PETITION NO.184 OF 2020

¶4

DYANESHWAR BAJIRAO NIKAM

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kulkarni Suresh M.
AGP for Respondents : Mr. P.G. Borade.

¶8

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE:07/01/2020

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

At the request of Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate, leave to
amend and add documents.

¶11

2. It appears that on 31.12.2019 the petitioner is now placed on

¶12

a supernumerary post only on the ground that validation certificate is
not submitted.

¶13

3.The validation proceeding is pending since 2003. The
vigilance is also not yet conducted. The petitioner cannot be said to be
at fault for non completion of validation proceeding. Unless and until

¶14

the vigilance is conducted the petitioner has no role to play in the
conduct of validation proceedings.

¶15

1/2

¶16

25.odt

¶17

4. In the light of the above we pass following order.

¶18

5. The respondent No. 2-Committee shall decide the validation

¶19

proceeding in respect of the tribe claim of the petitioner on its own
merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferable within 6
months from the date of the appearance of the petitioner before the
Committee.

¶20

6.The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on
30.01.2020.

¶21

7.The impugned orders dated 31.12.2019 and 06.12.2019 are
quashed and set aside. The respondent-employer shall not take
adverse action against the petitioner only on the ground that the
validation proceeding is pending.

¶22

8.The respondent-employer may take further course of action
depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the
Committee in validation proceeding.

¶23

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶24

( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )
mkd

¶25

2/2

Dyaneshwar Bajirao Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dyaneshwar Bajirao Nikam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushilabai Balasaheb Magar through Next Friend Balasaheb Yadavrao Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Venkat Sambahji Surywad Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Thorugh Its Member Secretary and Another

Dnyandeo Dattatraya Pandule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anusaya Tejerao Bhujbale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Muzammil Noman Mohammed Abdul Gaffar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janhavi Sunil Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another