Sudhakar Baliram Tayade vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1976 Bom

                                      1             1162-wp 344-2021+.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 344 OF 2021

 Sudhakar Baliram Tayade                                         .. Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                             .. Respondents

 Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                                      WITH
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 6355 OF 2015

 Pallavi Sudhakar Tayade
 Through her father
 Sudhakar Baliram Tayade                                         .. Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                             .. Respondents

 Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
 Mr. K. C. Sant, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

                                CORAM :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                          SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

                                DATED :    29th JANUARY, 2021.

 PER COURT:-

 .        The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2015 is the daughter

of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 344 of 2021. The tribe claim of the

daughter is invalidated whereas the validation proceeding of father is

1 of 4

2 1162-wp 344-2021+.odt

pending.

2. Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

tribe claim of daughter Pallavi was invalidated initially under the order

of the committee dated 03.06.2009. The said Kumari Pallavi preferred

Writ Petition No. 6554 of 2009. The same was partly allowed. The

order of the committee was set aside and the matter was remitted to

the committee under order dated 04.02.2014. This Court while

remitting the matter back directed the committee to consider the

validity granted to the paternal aunt of the petitioner namely Usha

Tayade, so also observations were made about the other relevant

documents and the facts while invalidating the tribe claim of Pallavi.

Again the committee committed the same mistake and did not adhere

to the directions given by this Court while remitting the matter back.

According to the learned counsel, the committee ought to have

considered all the aspects as was observed by this Court.

3. We have also heard the learned A.G.P. for respondents/State. The

learned A.G.P. submits that upon perusing the documents, considering

the affinity test and place of residence, the committee has drawn

correct conclusion.

4. The validation proceeding of the father is still pending with the

2 of 4

3 1162-wp 344-2021+.odt

committee and he is supposed to retire on attaining age of

superannuation in April 2021.

5. This Court had made certain observations in case of Pallavi while

remitting the matter back to the committee. The committee ought to

have considered the observations made by this Court and thereafter

ought to have re-scrutinized and re-verified the tribe claim. The Court

while remitting the matter back under order dated 04.02.2014 in Writ

Petition No. 6554 of 2009 expected the committee to assign the reasons

other than already assigned for either omitting from consideration or

not accepting the reliance of the claimant on the documents noted in

the said judgment. It appears that the same was not adhered to

threadbare by the committee.

6. In the light of the above, we pass the following order.

7. The impugned order passed by the committee dated 15.12.2014

assailed in Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The

matter is remitted back to the committee. The committee shall

reconsider the said claim in tune with the observations made by this

Court in its order dated 04.02.2014 in Writ Petition No. 6554 of 2009.

8. Along with the claim of Pallvai, the committee shall also decide

the tribe claim of Sudhakar i.e. petitioner in Writ Petition No. 344 of

2021.

                                                                               3 of 4





                                         4              1162-wp 344-2021+.odt

 9.       The     petitioners   shall   appear   before     the     committee         on

05.02.2021. The committee shall thereafter endeavour to decide the

validation proceedings by the end of March 2021.

10. During this period, the respondents may process the claim of the

petitioner Sudhakar for grant of higher grade pay scale.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions are

disposed of. No costs.

 ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI )                            ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
         JUDGE                                                 JUDGE




 P.S.B.




                                                                                 4 of 4