Bombay High Court
Pushpa D/O Sakharam Ingale vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 11 October, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
Judgment WP 2709.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2709 OF 2021
Pushpa D/o Sakharam Ingale
Age 49 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Changefal, Tq. Sindkhed Raja, .. Petitioner
Dist. Buldana
Versus
1. Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Buldana
2. District Health officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldana
3. Medical Officer,
.. Respondents
Primary Health Centre, Kingaon Raja,
Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldana
4. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, Old By
Pass, Chaprashipura, Amravati through
its Vice Chairman/ Jt. Commissioner.
Mr. Ankush P. Kalmegh Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. Sangeeta Jachak, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.4.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 11/10/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard Mr. Ankush Kalmegh, learned counsel for the
PAGE 1 OF 3
Judgment WP 2709.2021.odt
petitioner, Mrs.Sangeeta Jachak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
to 3 and Mr. N. R. Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(3) The caste claim of the petitioner is pending since the
year 2013. As per the settled law, no person in service could be
terminated from the service till the claim is decided one way or the
other. For this proposition of law, reference to the cases of Sharada
Laxman Shankhpal vs. Forest Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd. and others, LD-VC-NO.488 of 2020, decided on 16 th
July, 2020 and Deepak Ramkrushna Pinjarkar vs. The Registrar,
Panjabrao Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola and another, Writ Petition
No.3102 of 2020, decided on 27th November, 2020 be made.
(4) In the present case, the caste claim of the petitioner
has not been decided but, the service of the petitioner has been
converted to supernumerary post, for a period of 11 months. The
effect of such an order, which is also impugned in this case would be
that after the expiry of the period of 11 months or after the expiry of
PAGE 2 OF 3
Judgment WP 2709.2021.odt
the extended period, the service of the petitioner would be ultimately
terminated and even this would not be permissible in view of the law
laid down in the aforesaid stated cases.
(5) In these circumstances, we are of the view that
necessary directions are required to be given to the respondent No.4
for expeditious decision of the caste claim of the petitioner.
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The respondent No.4 is directed to decide the caste claim of
the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of
the order.
iii. We direct that the service of the petitioner be not terminated
till the caste claim is decided and in case the caste claim is
decided against the petitioner, the service of the petitioner
shall not be terminated for a further period of two weeks from
the date of such decision.
Rule accordingly. No costs.
[ANIL S. KILOR] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE ]
KOLHE
PAGE 3 OF 3
