Allowed

Pushpa D/O Sakharam Ingale v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldana and Others

Bombay HC11 Oct 2021WP/2709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dealt with a writ petition challenging the conversion of the petitioner's service to a supernumerary post while her caste claim was pending. The court held that terminating a servant while a claim is pending is impermissible and directed expedient disposal of the claim within two weeks, safeguarding the service during and briefly after the decision.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed. Respondent No.4 directed to decide the caste claim within two weeks. Petitioner's service protected from termination during pendency and for two weeks thereafter.

Pushpa D/O Sakharam Ingale Vs Chief Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Judgment WP 2709.2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2709 OF 2021

¶4

Pushpa D/o Sakharam Ingale Age 49 years, Occu. Service, R/o. Changefal, Tq. Sindkhed Raja, .. Petitioner Dist. Buldana

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Buldana

¶7

District Health officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldana

¶8

Medical Officer, .. Respondents Primary Health Centre, Kingaon Raja, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldana

¶9

Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, Old By Pass, Chaprashipura, Amravati through its Vice Chairman/ Jt. Commissioner.

¶10

Mr. Ankush P. Kalmegh Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Sangeeta Jachak, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.4.

¶11

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 11/10/2021

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶14

Heard Mr. Ankush Kalmegh, learned counsel for the

¶15

PAGE 1 OF 3

¶16

Judgment WP 2709.2021.odt

¶17

petitioner, Mrs.Sangeeta Jachak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. N. R. Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶18

(2) Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶19

finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶20

(3) The caste claim of the petitioner is pending since the year 2013. As per the settled law, no person in service could be terminated from the service till the claim is decided one way or the other. For this proposition of law, reference to the cases of Sharada Laxman Shankhpal vs. Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, LD-VC-NO.488 of 2020, decided on 16^th July, 2020 and Deepak Ramkrushna Pinjarkar vs. The Registrar, Panjabrao Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola and another, Writ Petition No.3102 of 2020, decided on 27^th November, 2020 be made.

¶21

(4) In the present case, the caste claim of the petitioner has not been decided but, the service of the petitioner has been converted to supernumerary post, for a period of 11 months. The effect of such an order, which is also impugned in this case would be that after the expiry of the period of 11 months or after the expiry of

¶22

PAGE 2 OF 3

¶23

Judgment WP 2709.2021.odt

¶24

the extended period, the service of the petitioner would be ultimately terminated and even this would not be permissible in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid stated cases.

¶25

(5) In these circumstances, we are of the view that

¶26

necessary directions are required to be given to the respondent No.4 for expeditious decision of the caste claim of the petitioner.

¶27

i. The petition is allowed.

¶28

ii. The respondent No.4 is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

¶29

iii. We direct that the service of the petitioner be not terminated till the caste claim is decided and in case the caste claim is decided against the petitioner, the service of the petitioner shall not be terminated for a further period of two weeks from the date of such decision.

¶30

Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶31

[ANIL S. KILOR] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE ]

¶32

KOLHE

¶33

PAGE 3 OF 3

Pushpa D/O Sakharam Ingale v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa D/O Sakharam Ingale v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldana and Others

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

Mir Sadique Ali Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Snehal Ramesh Rangari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Others

Tejas S/O Ramesh Katole Vs Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr Member Sec. and Dy. Director and Others

Shri. Nilesh Kishorraoji Dhongde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Its Secretary, Sports and Youth Services Dept. Ando Thers

Prafulla S/O Ram Lanjewar Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secy., Dept. of Industries, Energy and Labour, Mumbai and Another

Manoj Ramkrishna Kuite Vs Sachin Moreshwar Mahakalkar and Others