Disposed

Laxmi Kishan Suryawad v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC23 Apr 2024WP/4259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad addressed multiple writ petitions challenging Scheduled Tribe validity certificates. The court noted prima facie evidence of fraud by validity holders and directed employers not to terminate petitioners from government employment, pending final disposal, provided undertakings against future benefits are filed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to employers not to terminate petitioners from service solely due to invalidated claims or pending petitions, conditional upon filing undertakings by 04.05.2024.

Laxmi Kishan Suryawad vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

28 +.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4135 OF 2024

¶4

Vimal Anandrao Mali Surewad

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 4144 OF 2024

¶9

Govind Ananda Suryawad Surewad

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶12

AND

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 4185 OF 2024

¶14

Madhav Ganpati Surewad

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶17

AND

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 4186 OF 2024

¶19

Varsha Prabhatrao Surewad

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶22

AND

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO. 4256 OF 2024

¶24

Prabhata Ganpati Surewad

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶27

AND

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO. 4257 OF 2024

¶29

Page 1 of 8

¶30

28 +.odt

¶31

Govind Sambhaji Surewad

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶34

AND

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO. 4258 OF 2024

¶36

Suryakant Amruta Surewad

¶37

VERSUS

¶38

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶39

AND

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2024

¶41

Laxmi Kisan Suryawad VERSUS

¶42

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶43

...

¶44

Mr. C. R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A. B. Girase, GP and Mr. V. S. Badakh, Mr. V. M. Kagne, Mr. R. K. Ingole, Mr. A.A.A. Khan & Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGPs for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3/State Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

¶45

...

¶46

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & R. M. JOSHI, JJ DATE : APRIL 23, 2024

¶47

PER COURT :

¶48

The Writ Petition Nos. 4256/2024, 4257/2024,

¶49

4258/2024 & 4259/2024, are not on board. Taken on board, by the consent of the parties.

¶50

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 24^th June, 2024. The learned GP/AGPs waives service of

¶51

Page 2 of 8

¶52

28 +.odt

¶53

notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri.

¶54

Pulkundwar, learned Advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

¶55

We have perused the judgment recently delivered by this Court at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 8822 of 2022 with other connected Petitions ( Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others ), in which, a view has been expressed that this Court alone can arrive at a conclusion on a fraud played by a litigant while deriving a validity certificate.

¶56

After we briefly heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides, at first blush, we were impressed by the fact that these Petitioners are supported by 23 validity holders. However, the following factors, as have been pointed out by the learned GP/AGP, are eye openers:

¶57

A) Govind was the first Applicant from amongst the

¶58

clan to make an application for seeking a validity certificate of ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe.

¶59

B) Govind is the son of Sambhaji, grandson of Manika

¶60

Page 3 of 8

¶61

28 +.odt

¶62

and great grandson of Jalba. This is the branch of

¶63

Jalba. Govind’s claim was invalidated on 27.09.1996.

¶64

C) Pradnya, daughter of Baliram, granddaughter of Ganpati, who is son of Manika (Ganpati is the biological brother of Sambhaji), suppressed the invalidation of Govind s/o Sambhaji and acquired a validity certificate in 2002, on the basis of maternal relatives (not paternal relatives).

¶65

D) Kiran, son of Dhondiba, is the sibling of Sharda and Pankaj. Kiran’s claim is also invalidated on 06.06.2002. Sharda and Pankaj suppressed the very existence of Kiran and obtained validity certificates, by indicating that they were the only 2 siblings.

¶66

E) Several of the cousins of these Petitioners from the branch of Jayram, who is the biological brother of Jalba (whose father is Shivram Jalba Surewad) namely, Kusum son of Jayram, Raosaheb son of Jayram, Vyankat son of Jayram, Shivaji son of Jayram, Sanjay son of Jayram, Ramdas son of Tukaram, Balaji Gopal son of Anand and Rutuja and Ramrao, siblings, have acquired validity certificates. These are from the branch of

Page 4 of 8

28 +.odt

Jayram son of Jalba.

F) From the branch of Jalba son of Shivram, Shantabai daughter of Amruta, Jalba son of Kishan, Sharda and Pankaj, son/daughter of Dhondiba, Vijay and Pankaj sons of Suryakant, Prashant and Prachi son/daughter of Baliram (Pradnya is their sibling), Vinayak son of Dattaram, Ankush son of Parshuram, Pratibha daughter of Parbata, Sunil/Anil/Kishor sons of Jalba, grandsons of Kishan, have all acquired the validity certificates.

¶71

G) The twist in these matters is that, Pradnya suppressed the rejection of the claims of Govind and Kiran and obtained validity certificates on the basis of the maternal relatives. This aspect has now been exposed.

¶72

H) All those who received validity certificates have suppressed the invalidity of Govind and Kiran and relied on Pradnya. In fact, the siblings of Kiran, namely, Sharada and Pankaj, have not mentioned their biological brother Kiran in their family tree, only because Kiran’s claim was invalidated.

¶73

Page 5 of 8

¶74

28 +.odt

¶75

I) All the validity holders placed reliance on

¶76

Pradnya. As such, the case of Pradnya has become the foundation for all others to establish their claims for validity. If the case of Pradnya is exposed in the backdrop of the rejection of Govind and Kiran, all these validity holders are likely to lose their validity certificates.

¶77

Besides these aspects, the learned GP has

¶78

drawn our attention to the very first entry of 1928 and the entries of 1942. The entry of 1928 (1338 Fasli) indicates the social status as Manurwar, which is not in the ST category. The 1942 entry (1353 Fasli) is Manurwar with “LU” having been added subsequently. These records were considered, according to the learned GP when the claims of Govind and Kiran were considered. Pradnya received the validity certificate which a cyclostyled order with ‘fill in the blanks’ in ink. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by this Court in Bharat Nagu Garud (supra), would be squarely applicable, since prima facie, we find that there are several factors pointing towards a serious fraud which is the basis of

¶79

Page 6 of 8

¶80

28 +.odt

¶81

the validity certificates of all the validity holders.

¶82

The learned GP/AGPs have vehemently opposed grant of interim relief. According to them, such litigants hoodwink the Court and snatch orders. A message needs to go out loud and clear that such attempts do not succeed in the Court of law.

¶83

Principally, we have no reason to doubt the contentions of these law officers. The only issue that weighs on our mind is that the Petitioners before us are in government employment. No doubt, all are now under a cloud in so far as their validity certificates are concerned. Until we decide these Petitions finally, refusal of interim relief would lead to their termination from service and eventually, if the Court holds in their favour, they would have suffered loss of employment/loss of earning as well as their families would suffer. Being a Court of equity, we will have to balance the equities.

¶84

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners

¶85

fairly submits on instructions that this Court may protect the employment of these Petitioners and they

¶86

Page 7 of 8

¶87

28 +.odt

¶88

are willing to tender affidavits/undertakings in this Court, as well as before their individual employers that, they would not claim any increments/further pay fixation/ promotions / service benefits etc., until their claims are validated by this Court.

¶89

On the condition of such affidavits

¶90

/undertaking being filed in this Court and copies being tendered to the respective employers, on or before 04.05.2024, we direct the employers of these Petitioners not to terminate their services only for the reason that their claims have been invalidated and their Petitions are pending before us. If any of them does not enter an affidavit by 04.05.2024, this interim relief would stand automatically vacated without reference to the Court on 06.05.2024.

¶91

The parties shall note that if Pradnya or any other validity holder from the said clan suffers invalidity after reopening of a case, the learned

¶92

GP/AGPs would be at liberty to place the said order before this Court for reference.

¶93

Malani

¶94

Page 8 of 8

Laxmi Kishan Suryawad v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Kishan Suryawad v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant S/O Ramkrushna Patil vs Ranjitsingh Deol

Sima Shalikrao Patil vs Ranjit Singh Deol

Gondibai Mukhi Pawara vs the State of Maharashtra through District Revenue Collector and Others

Suryakant Amruta Surewad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Another

Parbhata Ganpati Surewad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Govind Sambhaji Surewad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others