Mangesh S/O Vasantrao Gharatkar vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5984 Bom

                                                        1                          wp5500.16.odt

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                        
                              WRIT PETITION NO.5500/2016




                                                                
            Mangesh s/o Vasantrao Gharatkar
            aged about 25 years, Occ. Service, 
            r/o At Post Dawa, Post Umrer, 
            Dist. Nagpur.                                        .....PETITIONER




                                                               
                            ...V E R S U S...

     1.     The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny 
            Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, 




                                                
            Giripeth, Nagpur, through its 
            Secretary.       
     2.     The Executive Engineer, 
            Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
                            
            Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL), Kankawali Division,
            through its Secretary, 

     3.     The Executive Engineer,
      

            Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
            Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL), Kankawali Division,
   



            Tah. Kankawali, Dist. Sindhudurg.       ...RESPONDENTS

     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ms Preeti Rane, Advocate for petitioner.





     Mr. S. Lule, A.G.P. for respondent no. 1.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     CORAM:-  B. R. GAVAI &    V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.

DATED :-

OCTOBER 13, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. GAVAI, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent

of the parties.

2 wp5500.16.odt

2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging

communication dated 12.09.2016 vide which the petitioner has been

communicated that on his failure to furnish the caste validity

certificate immediately, his services shall stand terminated.

3. The petitioner cannot be penalized on account of delay on

the part of the respondent no.1 in not deciding the claim of the

petitioner expeditiously.ig The learned A.G.P. states that the claim of the petitioner

shall be decided within a period of one year from today.

4. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed on the

following terms:

(i) The respondent no.1-Committee is directed to decide

the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of one year from today.

(ii) Till the decision is taken by the Committee on the

caste claim of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall not

terminate the services of the petitioner.

(iii) In the event the order passed by the respondent

no.1-Committee is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the

3 wp5500.16.odt

same shall not be given effect to for a period of three weeks

from the date of receipt of the communication thereof by the

petitioner from the respondent no.1.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order

as to costs.

(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. R. Gavai, J.)

kahale