Disposed

Rajesh Jagannath Sapkal v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC27 Aug 2024WP/9210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the petitioner's claim for Scheduled Tribe classification pending committee validation. The Court stayed termination actions pending the committee decision and directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit undertaking not to seek service benefits.

What did the court decide?

The Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim by 31.03.2025; the Employer to refrain from termination upon receipt of the petitioner's affidavit undertaking.

Rajesh Jagannath Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:20051-DB

¶2

( 1 ) 931 wp 9210.24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2024

¶5

RAJESH JAGANNATH SAPKAL

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.B. Kharosekar h/f. Boinwad Omgashad B. AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.R. Wakale

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 27^th August, 2024

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

The Petitioner’s claim of belonging to the Koli Malhar-30 Scheduled Tribe category is pending validation with the competent Committee, since 03.07.2024. This Petition is filed on 16.08.2024. His biological brother Rushikesh Jagannath Sapkal has been granted a tribe validity certificate by the order of this Court dated 21.08.2019, in Writ Petition No.9162/2019. The

¶12

Petitioner is in service and apprehends termination on account of nonfurnishing of the validity certificate. He is willing to tender an affidavit undertaking that he would not seek permanency or regularization in employment or increments / pay fixation / promotions / service benefits etc. until his claim is validated either by the Committee or by this Court. He submits that such affidavit would be filed on or before 10.09.2024, in this

¶13

( 2 ) 931 wp 9210.24

¶14

Court as well as with the employer. On the basis of the affidavit, he prays for protecting of his service.

¶15

The learned AGP submits, on instructions from the Committee, that the validity claim of the Petitioner would be decided by the Committee, on or before 31.03.2025.

¶16

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off with the following directions:-

¶17

(a) The pending claim of the Petitioner shall be decided by the Scrutiny Committee, on or before 31.03.2025.

¶18

(b) The Petitioner shall tender the copy of the affidavit undertaking ‘X’ to the Employer, within 15 days from today.

¶19

(c) In view of the affidavit undertaking ‘X’, the Employer would refrain from terminating the services of the Petitioner only for the reason that he does not have a validity certificate.

¶20

(d) The Petitioner would render wholehearted cooperation to the competent Committee. Correspondence on his email address/ Whatsapp account would be considered as proper service. His email address and Whatsapp number are [email protected] and 8983698396.

¶21

( 3 ) 931 wp 9210.24

¶22

(e) The Petitioner shall refrain from seeking adjournment on unreasonable or trivial ground, lest, the Committee would be justified in progressing to the next stage in the proceedings.

¶23

(f) If an adverse order is passed by the Committee, the service of the Petitioner will not be terminated considering that the affidavit undertaking ‘X’ will continue to bind the Petitioner even before this Court, when he challenges the adverse order.

¶24

[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]

¶25

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

¶26

mub

Rajesh Jagannath Sapkal v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Jagannath Sapkal v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krushna Sahebrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Coopeation of Marketing and Other

Jayraj Yuvraj Saraikar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manish Bhikanrao Pol and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Coopeation of Marketing and Other

Hussin Aslam Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Tunviey Radheshyam Mopalwar Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 and Another

Ganesh Nagnathrao Phulari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Another