Disposed¶20

Ramesh Mankayya Lakekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Mar 2026CA/4333/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Invalidated caste/tribe claim; retiral and pensionary benefits; ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe; Scrutiny Committee; Zilla Parishad; Accountant General; Government Resolution dated 14.12.2022; undertaking to abandon tribe claim; Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No. 5210 of 2017; Civil Application No. 4333 of 2025; disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad to process and forward the proposal for grant of pensionary benefit to the petitioner within four weeks, and to the Accountant General to decide on the proposal on its own merit and in accordance with law within 12 weeks thereafter; Writ Petition and Civil Application No. 4333 of 2025 disposed of on that basis. ¶20

Ramesh Mankayya Lakekar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether a government employee whose caste/tribe claim has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee can be deprived of retiral (pensionary) benefits. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the Government Resolution dated 14.12.2022, government employees whose caste claim is invalidated cannot be deprived of retiral benefits; accordingly the Writ Petition and Civil Application were disposed of by directing Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad to process the proposal for grant of pensionary benefit to the petitioner.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad was expected to forward the proposal of pensionary benefit of the petitioner within four (4) weeks, and upon receipt by the Accountant General, the Accountant General was directed to take a decision on the proposal on its own merit and in accordance with law within 12 weeks thereafter.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Writ Petition No. 5210 of 2017 (with Civil Application No. 4333 of 2025), decided 27 March 2026, Coram: Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ. (per court, Abasaheb D. Shinde J.). Petitioner Ramesh Mankayya Lakekar had challenged the order of Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee invalidating his tribe claim of belonging to ‘Mannewar’, Scheduled Tribe, but restricted his claim to payment of pensionary benefits and undertook that he and his descendants would give up the ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe claim forever. Relying on the Government Resolution dated 14.12.2022 (government employees whose caste claim is invalidated cannot be deprived of retiral benefits), the court disposed of the Writ Petition and Civil Application, directing Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad to forward the pensionary-benefit proposal within four weeks and the Accountant General to decide on it on its own merit and in accordance with law within 12 weeks thereafter.

¶1

911-wp-5210

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:14352-DB

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

911 WRIT PETITION NO. 5210 OF 2017

¶6

Ramesh Mankayya Lakekar VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶8

Mr. Vivekanand M. Maney, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondents/State Mr. Chandrant D. Biradar. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5

¶9

WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4333 OF 2025 IN WP/5210/2017

¶11

... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 27^TH MARCH 2026

¶12

PER COURT (Abasaheb D. Shinde J.) :-

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the Respondent/State and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad.

¶14

Though the petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order passed by Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Mannewar’, Scheduled Tribe, however learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner restricts his claim only as regards the payment of pensionary benefits. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to file an undertaking before this Court,

¶15

Narwade

¶16

911-wp-5210 -2-

¶17

his employer as well as before Respondent-Scrutiny Committee stating that the petitioner and his descendants will give up their claim of belonging to ‘Mannewar’, Scheduled tribe forever henceforth.

¶18

In the light of the above and taking into consideration the provision of Government Resolution dated 14.12.2022 that the Government Employees whose caste claim is invalidated cannot be deprived from getting the retiral benefits, we are inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition and Civil Application by directing Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad to process the proposal for grant of pensionary benefit to the petitioner.

¶19

We expect that Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad would forward the proposal of pensionary benefit of the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from today. If such proposal is sent and is received by the Accountant General, we direct the Accountant General to take decision on the said proposal on its own merit and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.

¶20

With this direction, Writ Petition and Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶21

[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]

¶22

Narwade

Ramesh Mankayya Lakekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Mankayya Lakekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalyansingh Bharatsingh Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Priyanka Dattatray Budrupe vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Govind Dharmaraj Kale vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanchita Mahendra Chavhan vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Yash Sayanna Karhade through Sayanna Iranna Karhade vs Sheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Kinwat Thorough Member Secretary

Ranjeet Vitthal Sapkal vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Anr.