Nageshwar Aba Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9876 Bom

                                                        919-wp-2371-2018 judg.odt
                                      (1)

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO.2371 OF 2018
                    WITH CA/4694/2020 IN WP/2371/2018


Nageshwar Aba Thakur,
Age : 25 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Post Dondaincha, Tq. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.                                            ...Petitioner

                Versus

1.      The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        General Administration Department,
        Mantralaya Mumbai-32.

2.      The Assistant General Manager,
        Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution,
        Company Ltd. Jalgaon Division Jalgaon,
        Vidhyut Bhawan, Old Industrial Vasahat,
        Ajantha Road, Jalgaon.

3.      The Superintendent Engineer,
        Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution,
        Company Ltd. Mandal Karyalaya, Nandurbar,
        Dist. Nandurbar.

4.      The Executive Engineer,
        Shahada Division, Shahada,
        Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution,
        Company Ltd, Shahada,
        Dist. Nandurbar.                                ...Respondents

                                   ...

Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.G. Sangle, AGP for Respondent No.1.

Mr. S.R. Salve, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 4.

...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 28th JULY, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by

the consent of the parties.

919-wp-2371-2018 judg.odt

2. A short issue has been raised in this petition. The petitioner

is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 31.01.2018 issued by

respondent nos.2 to 4 directing the petitioner to tender his tribe certifcate

as he belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The Government Resolution

dated 13.06.2003 prescribes that reservation will not apply to

compassionate appointments.

3. The learned advocate representing the employer i.e.

respondent nos.2 to 4, submits on instructions, that the petitioner has not

been appointed on a post which is reserved for any particular backward

category. His father was in employment with these respondents. His

father passed away while being in employment on 05.01.2015. The

petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant considering his

qualifcations vide appointment letter dated 30.03.2016.

4. This Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta and Ravindra V.

Ghuge, JJ.) have delivered a judgment dated 18/04/2017 in the matter of

Pramod Shivaji Shinde V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ

Petition No.4656 of 2014 (Mumbai) reported in 2017(3) Mh.L.J. 925.

By placing reliance upon an earlier judgment of this Court in

Vinodkumar Singh Rajkumar V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others,

reported in 2016 Mh.L.J. Online 10, it has been concluded that a

candidate appointed on compassionate ground in place of his parent,

would not be required to tender a validity certifcate. However, it goes

without saying that such candidate appointed on compassionate basis is

not eligible to seek service benefts on the ground that he belongs to a

reserved tribe category. Such a candidate after securing employment on

919-wp-2371-2018 judg.odt

compassionate basis, is not entitled to demand service benefts which are

reserved for a particular backward category.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner makes a statement,

on instructions, that the petitioner would never make such claims towards

any service benefts merely because he belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled

Tribe category.

6. Needless to state, in the event of any service beneft being

available to this petitioner as he belongs to the 'Thakur' reserved tribe

category, such benefts will not be accorded to him until he has produced

the tribe validity certifcate.

7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned

notice dated 31.01.2018 is quashed and set aside. Needless to state, the

employer would not insist on a tribe validity certifcate to be tendered by

the petitioner unless he is eligible for any service beneft on account of he

belonging to the 'Thakur' tribe and only after he submits his tribe validity

certifcate, as a condition precedent, that such benefts, if any, based on

his eligibility, would thereafter be extended to him.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

9. Pending civil application does not survive and stands

disposed of.

     (S.G. MEHARE. J)                       (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)

Mujaheed//