Bombay High Court
Madan Ranganath Taware vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 28 March, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.2085 OF 2016
Madan S/o Rangnath Taware,
Age 58 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Lanjeshwar Tq.Bhoom,
Dist.Osmanabad. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Tribal Development Department,
through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad,
through its Deputy Director/
Member.
3. The Administrative Officer,
(Transport), Transport Office,
Maghthane Agar (BEST), Near
Tata Vidhyut Sanghrahi Kendra,
Boriwali(E),Mumbai-66. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.M.Phule, A.G.P for the State
...
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:49:17 :::
2
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.
Date : 28.03.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties taken up for final
hearing.
3. Mr.Jadhavar, learned counsel submits
that the validation proceedings in respect of the
tribe claim of the petitioner is pending with the
Committee. The same is not yet decided. The
petitioner on 31.3.2016, is going to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation. The
Respondents in the letter have stated that the
petitioner would not be entitled for any retiral
benefits. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioner is appointed in the year 1996. Even
otherwise,th petitioner would be entitled for
protection in service in view of the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Arun
S/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others" reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J.457.
4. Mr.Manorkar, learned counsel for
Respondent No.3 submits that in case the
petitioner's caste claim is invalidated then the
petitioner would not be entitled for any retiral
benefits and if there is a finding of fraud then
even further action can be taken.
5.
We have heard learned A.G.P also.
6. It is not disputed that the validation
proceedings in respect of Tribe claim of the
petitioner is pending with the Committee and the
petitioner on attaining age of superannuation is
going to retire after 31.3.2016. In light of
that the Respondent No.3 shall process the
pension papers of the petitioner and by that time
if validation proceedings are not decided, shall
sanction provisional pension to the petitioner.
The Respondent No.3 can take further course of
action in tune with the judgment of the Committee
in validation proceedings.
7. The petitioner shall cooperate in
expeditious disposal of the proceedings before
the Committee. The petitioner shall appear
before the Committee on 11.4.2016. The Committee
shall decide the said proceedings expeditiously,
considering that the same is pending since the
year 2011, preferably within six (6) months.
8. Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp2085.16
