Allowed

Kailash Manohar Wankhade v. the Vice Chairman /Secretary and Othersmember

Bombay HC25 Apr 2022WP/1592/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the Government Resolution dated 21-12-2019 does not apply to employees whose tribe claims were invalidated but who were granted employment protection by prior orders that have attained finality. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Government Resolution dated 21-12-2019 is to be read as excluding employees with protected employment status despite invalidated tribe claims; corresponding communications are unsustainable.

Kailash Manohar Wankhade Vs the Vice Chairman… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

(1) wp1592.22.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

92 WRIT PETITION NO. 1592 OF 2022

¶4

Kailash Manohar Wankhade,
Age-56 years, Occu-Service,
R/o. Jagdamba Nagar, Shegaon,
Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana

¶5

...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chaprashipura, Amravati Division, Amaravati

¶8

2. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Shegaon, Tq. Shegao, Dist. Buldhana

¶9

3. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration, Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 ... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mrs. Preeti D. Rane, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent/State

¶11

AND

¶12

93 WRIT PETITION NO. 1593 OF 2022

¶13

Sunita Balkrushna Gathe,
Age-45 years, Occu-Service,
R/o. Jalgaon Jamod, Tq. Jalgaon,
Dist. Buldhana

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

VERSUS

1 of 5

(2)

wp1592.22.odt

1. The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Chaprashipura, Amravati Division, Amravati ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mrs. Preeti D. Rane, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent/State

¶21

CORAM:R. D. DHANUKA &
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE:25th April, 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The
learned AGP waives service of notice for the
respondent.

¶24

2.This court after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties issued various directions.
This court directed the learned AGP to verify
whether these matters which are on board today are
covered by the judgment delivered by the Division
Bench of this Court on 04-05-2021 in writ petition
No. 903 of 2020 and other connected matters in the
case ofRaja Tukaram Shinde Vs the State of
Maharashtra and others.

¶25

3.In the operative part of the said order
this court held that the Government Resolution dated
21-12-2019 shall be read in a manner “not to include

2 of 5

(3)

wp1592.22.odt

the employees whose tribes claims are invalidated,
but are granted protection in employment under the
judgments/orders of this court and the said
judgments/orders have attained the finality”. This
court accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned
communications placing the petitioners on
supernumerary posts and allowed such petitions.

¶30

4.The learned AGP for the State on
instructions states that these petitions are covered
by the judgment delivered by this court. Both the
parties jointly state that this court thus need not
record reasons in this order. Statement is accepted.

¶31

5.The learned AGP states that against the
judgment delivered on 04-05-2021 in the case ofRaja
Tukaram Shinde(supra) some of the respondents
Management as well as the State Government have
filed special leave petition before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Statement is accepted.

¶32

6.It is not in dispute that the judgment of
this court delivered on 04-05-2021 in the case of
Raja Tukaram Shindeand others has not been stayed
by Hon’ble Supreme court till date.

¶33

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner does
not press the relief for writ of certiorari

3 of 5

(4)

wp1592.22.odt

quashing and setting aside the order of invalidation
of the caste of the petitioner and seeks to press
other prayers on the basis of judgment passed by
this court in the case ofRaja Tukaram Shinde Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others in writ Petition No.
903 of 2020and other companion petitions. Statement
is accepted. In view of the statement made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not
considering the prayer for quashing the order of
invalidation of the caste claim. In so far as the
other prayers are concerned, in our view other
prayers are covered by the principals laid down by
this court in the case ofRaja Shinde(supra). We
accordingly, pass the following order:

¶38

a]The Government Resolution dated 21-12-
2019 shall be read in manner “not to
include the employees whose tribes claims
are invalidated, but are granted protection
in employment under the judgments/orders of
this court and the said judgments/orders
have attained the finality”.

¶39

b]It is made clear that in view of this
court declaring that the Government
Resolution dated 21-12-2019 shall not
include the employees whose tribes claims
are invalidated but are granted protection

4 of 5

(5)

wp1592.22.odt

in employment under the judgment and order
and the said judgment order had obtained
finality, communication if any issued by
the Management based on the said Government
Resolution dated 21-12-2021 would not be
survive.

¶44

8.The writ petitions are allowed in aforesaid
terms. Rule is made absolute. No orders as to costs.

¶45

9.Parties to act upon authenticated copy of
this order.

¶46

VishalK/wp1592.22.odt

¶47

5 of 5

Kailash Manohar Wankhade v. the Vice Chairman /Secretary and Othersmember

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Manohar Wankhade v. the Vice Chairman /Secretary and Othersmember

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

Kadu Bajirao Dhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Janardhan Meshram Vs Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation through Its Managing Director and Others

Shaikh Suleman Shaikh Bhayya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Purushottam Waman Kohad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Haribhau Vithal Pathade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunita Balkrushna Gathe Vs the Vice Chairman/Member Secretary and Others