Disposed

Gajendra Bhimrao Koli v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC4 Jul 2022WP/9277/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order records the petitioner's undertaking not to claim benefits linked to his Scheduled Tribe status. The Court directs the employer not to terminate his service due to the claim's invalidation but restricts his eligibility for increments and pay revisions until his status is legally validated.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued; undertaking recorded; directions issued not to terminate services or deny increments/pay revisions pending validation of status.

Gajendra Bhimrao Koli Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

912 WRIT PETITION NO. 9277 OF 2022

¶4

GAJENDRA BHIMRAO KOLI

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr.M.M.Bhokarikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.J.Salgare, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 6 and 7. Ms.Nikita Gore, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶8

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND

Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, JJ.)

DATE : JULY 4, 2024

PER COURT :

This Petition is circulated for the first time today, after it was lodged on 23.06.2022. The claim of the Petitioner of belonging to the Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe category has been invalidated by the Committee, vide order dated 08.02.2022. The Petitioner claims that he is still in employment with Respondent No.5.

¶13

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 12.08.2024. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. The learned Standing Counsel waives service of notice

¶14

khs/July 2024/9277

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶17

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner regrets to state that by mistake the words “and rejoinder” has been mentioned in the affidavit undertaking dated 04.07.2024, which is filed on record from page Nos. 55 to 60. Same be marked as “X-1” . He seeks leave to delete. Deletion permitted.

¶18

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that a specific affidavit undertaking has been mentioned in paragraph No.7 of X-1, that till the claim of the Petitioner is validated, he will not claim any promotion, seniority or other benefits which are available on the basis of his entry in service on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe Category.

¶19

We record the statement by further directing that he would not be eligible for any increments or pay revisions keeping in view that he has not tendered his validity certificate after securing employment on 18.04.2012 and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation

¶20

khs/July 2024/9277

¶21

¶22

of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others [(2017) 8 SCC 670] . On the condition of filing the affidavit undertaking, we direct the employer not to terminate the services of the Petitioner only for the reason that his claim is invalidated.

¶23

All office objections shall be removed on or before 30.07.2024, failing which, the Petition shall stand dismissed on 31.07.2024, without reference to the Court.

¶24

( Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶25

khs/July 2024/9277

Gajendra Bhimrao Koli v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Bhimrao Koli v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary 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

Sarangdhar Sarjerao Tambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ulka Pradip Jain Vs the Union of India and Others

Sahebrao Gahenaji Sonawane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others