Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramesh Madhavrao Dode vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2922 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2922 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 June, 2016

Bombay High Court
Ramesh Madhavrao Dode vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 16 June, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
                                             {1}
                                                                          wp 1477.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                                
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.1477 OF 2016




                                                        
     Ramesh S/o Madhavrao Dode,
     age: 34 years, occu: service as Shikshan Sevak
     with Zilha Parishad High School, Manur
     Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad




                                                       
     presently residing at Manur
     Tq. Vijapur, Dist. Aurangabad                                          Petitioner


              Versus




                                        
     1        The State of Maharashtra
                             
              Department of Sports & Education,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
              through Its Secretary
                            
     2        The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
              Committee,
              Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
              through : Its Member Secretary
      


     3        The Chief Executive Officer,
              Zilha Parishad, Aurangabad
   



     4        The Education Officer (Primary),
              Zilha Parishad, Aurangabad





     5        The Head Master
              Zilha Parishad High School, Manur
              Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad                             Respondents

Mr.S.C. Yeramwar advocate for the petitioner

Mr.A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.C.D. Biradar advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5 _______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L.WADANE, JJ

(Date : 16 th June, 2016.)

{2} wp 1477.16.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission stage.

3 The petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadev, scheduled tribe (ST)

and was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in the school, operated

by the Zilha Parishad on 29.12.2007, as against a seat prescribed

for ST category. The petitioner states that, the caste certificate

issued to him, certifying that he belongs to ST category has been

forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee and the validation claim is

not yet decided and the matter remained pending. In the

meanwhile, the petitioner has completed three years tenure as

Shikshan Sevak on 2.1.2011. It is the grievance of the petitioner

that, although he has completed the tenure of appointment as

Shikshan Sevak and is continued in employment of Zilha Parishad,

he is being paid salary prescribed for the post of Shikshan Sevak

and is not being paid salary in the pay scale prescribed for

Assistant Teacher. The Zilha Parishad ought to pay the salary to

the petitioner in the pay scale prescribed for the post of Assistant

Teacher after completion of service tenure of three years as

{3} wp 1477.16.odt

Shikshan Sevak from the date of his appointment.

4 It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner is continued

in the employment and has completed tenure of three years as

Shikshan Sevak. In this view of the matter, we direct the

respondents No.3 to 5 to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner

in the pay scale prescribed for Assistant Teacher since the date of

his completion of tenure as a Shikshan Sevak i.e. from 2.1.2011

onwards and shall continue to pay the salary in the pay scale of

Assistant Teacher. The difference of salary shall be paid within a

period of six months from today.

5 The respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee is directed to

decide caste validation claim of the petitioner, pending with the

Scrutiny Committee as expeditiously as possible and preferably

within a period of one year from today.

6 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.

     7        No order as to costs.





                  (K.L.WADANE, J)                 (R.M.BORDE, J)


     vbd





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter