Dismissed

Ramesh S/O Vasantrao Kumbhare v. the General Manager National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

Bombay HC6 Mar 2023WP/6129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, clerks whose Scheduled Tribe category claims were invalidated, challenged the respondent's direction to treat their entries as general category after initial appointment protection. The court dismissed the petitions, holding belated implementation of prior orders is no ground for interference, rejecting claims to benefits from later promotions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

Ramesh S/O Vasantrao Kumbhare Vs the General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

60-WP.6129.2021+2

¶2

jvs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

SALUNKE

¶5

J V

¶6

Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.03.08 16:37:03 +0530

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6129 OF 2021

¶8

Ramesh S/o. Vasantrao Kumbhare } Petitioner Versus The General Manager, National Bank } for Agriculture & Rural Development } Respondents

¶9

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 61	30 O	F 2021
Rakesh s/o. Wamanrao Kumbhare Versus	}	Petitioner
The General Manager, National Bank	}
for Agriculture & Rural Development	}	Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 61	31 O	F 2021
Kashinath s/o. Namdeorao Kadwe Versus	}	Petitioner
The General Manager, National Bank	}
for Agriculture & Rural Development	}	Respondents

¶12

Ms. Anita Gavkar i/b. Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar for the petitioners in all petitions.

¶13

Mr. S. P. Bharti for the respondent.

¶14

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶15

DATE: MARCH 6, 2023

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1. The petitioners were employed as clerks by the respondent from Scheduled Tribe category. Subsequently, the claim of the petitioners as belonging to Scheduled Tribe category was invalidated. The petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court

¶18

¶19

60-WP.6129.2021+2

¶20

at Nagpur Bench. The Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur, while partly allowing the writ petitions, passed the following order: -

¶21

“3. In that view of the matter, for the reasons recorded by us while allowing Writ Petition No. 900 of 2012 and other petitions on 9.10.2012, we allow this petition in the following terms:

¶22

(i) The petition, in so far as the challenge to order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, stands dismissed.

¶23

(ii) the respondent-employer is directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of invalidation of his tribe claim. However, it is made clear that the protection which is granted to the petitioner is only in respect of his initial appointment. It is also made clear that if any promotions are granted to the petitioner on the basis of his claim as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, the Authorities would be at liberty to withdraw the benefits and revert the petitioner to such of the post to which he would be legitimately entitled i.e. his entry into service is to be treated from open category.

¶24

(iii) The petitioner to file an undertaking within a period of three weeks from today, that hereinafter neither the petitioner not his progeny would be entitled to claim any benefits on the basis of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.”

¶25

2. Paragraph 3 is clear. The Court only protected the initial appointment of the petitioners; however, it also observed that if any promotions are granted to the petitioners on the basis of their claim as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, the authorities would be at liberty to withdraw the benefits and revert the petitioners to such of the post to which they would be legitimately entitled, i.e., their entry into service is to be treated from open category.

¶26

3. The respondent, pursuant to the said judgment, reverted the petitioners and subsequently the petitioners are promoted from general category.

¶27

4. The only contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners is that if the petitioners would have been reverted in the year 2012-2013, then, the petitioners would have passed departmental examination from general category.

¶28

¶29

60-WP.6129.2021+2

¶30

5. The same cannot be subject matter of consideration in the present writ petitions. The respondents acted as per the judgment of this Court at Nagpur Bench, in which, the subject matter of challenge was the invalidation of the caste claims of the petitioners. Only because the said judgment was followed belatedly would be no ground to interfere in the present writ petitions.

¶31

6. In light of the above, the writ petitions stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.

¶32

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶33

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶34

Ramesh S/O Vasantrao Kumbhare v. the General Manager National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Vasantrao Kumbhare v. the General Manager National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

Vishal S/O Atmaram Ahirrao (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Gen. Administration Dept. and Ors.

Shashikant S/O Sitaram Thakare (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary Gen Administration Dept. and Ors.

Owala Gavthan Gramshtan Sangharsh Samitee through Mr. Harichandra Ramu Dokphode Vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

V. B. Raman and 17 Ors. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Janashakti Bahutddeshiya Sanstha Thr. President Ajit Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smartchem Technologies Ltd. Vs Grocery Markets and Shops Board, Mumbai and Ors.