Malkhansing Mangalsingh Sable vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Malkhansing Mangalsingh Sable vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Application No. 4499 of 2026 allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B' (continuation of the interim protection of the applicant's services, the show cause notice being held not attributable to the applicant); Civil Application No. 4500 of 2026 allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A' (documents placed on record). The text of the prayer clauses is not set out in the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in Civil Application No. 4499 of 2026, the interim protection of the applicant's services should be continued and the employer's show cause notice dealt with, the earlier protection having lapsed inadvertently +1 more

Court's answer

Since the lapse in continuation of the interim protection was inadvertent and not the applicant's fault, the show cause notice issued by the employer cannot be attributed to any fault on the part of the applicant/petitioner

Ratio / Principle

Civil Application No. 4499 of 2026 deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B' and is disposed of accordingly

Key takeaways

Civil Application No. 4500 of 2026, seeking to place documents on record, is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A' as there is no serious objection from the other side, and is disposed of accordinglyratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tribe claim invalidation – continuation of interim protection – show cause notice. The petitioner, whose tribe claim stood invalidated (WP/5623/2020), had been protected by this Court's order dated 23/06/2020 directing the employer not to terminate his services pursuant to the impugned order; that protection was continued from time to time but was inadvertently not continued, whereupon the employer issued a show cause notice calling for a tribe validity certificate on pain of coercive action. Held (per Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.; Coram: Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ.): the lapse was not the petitioner's fault and the show cause notice could not be attributed to him; Civil Application No. 4499 of 2026 allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B'. Civil Application No. 4500 of 2026, seeking to place documents on record, allowed unopposed in terms of prayer clause 'A'. (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, 20/04/2026; neutral citation as printed: 2026:BHC-AUG:17947-DB)

2026:BHC-AUG:17947-DB

1 12 CA 4499-26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

12 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4499 OF 2026 IN WP/5623/2020

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4500 OF 2026 IN WP/5623/2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5623 OF 2020

MALKHANSING MANGALSINGH SABLE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Mr. Choudhari Deepak D., Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : 20/04/2026

P. C. : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

A) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4499 OF 2026 :

Heard.

The applicant/petitioner has approached this Court challenging the invalidation of his tribe claim. This Court, by an order dated 23/06/2020, while protecting the services of the applicant/petitioner, directed the employer not to terminate his services pursuant to the impugned order.

It appears that the said interim order was continued from time to time. However, inadvertently, the interim protection was not

2 12 CA 4499-26

continued thereafter, as a result of which the employer of the applicant/petitioner issued a show cause notice calling upon him to submit a validity certificate, failing which coercive action would be taken against him.

We find that this Court had already passed an interim order protecting the services of the applicant/petitioner. It is merely a matter of continuation of the said interim relief. Consequently, the show cause notice issued by the employer cannot be attributed to any fault on the part of the applicant/petitioner.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, for the reasons stated in the application, Civil Application No.4499 of 2026 deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’ and ‘B’, and is accordingly disposed of.

B) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4500 OF 2026 :

Heard.

By this civil application, the applicant/petitioner seeks to place certain documents on record.

Since there is no serious objection from the other side, the civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ and is accordingly disposed of.

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

VS Maind/-