Bombay High Court
Vinayak Marotrao Mahajan vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:11959-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5164 OF 2022
Vinayak Marotrao Mahajan,
Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Plot No. 101, Shivneri Apartment,
86, Kanfade Nagar, Ring Road,
Near Kalpvruksha Hospital,
Nagpur-440015. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Through its through its Vice-Chairman,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur-440010.
2) Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
through its Member/Secretary,
Express Tower, 4th Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
3) Chief Account Officer,
Add: Cidco Bhavan (South Wing),
3rd floor, Belapur,
New Mumbai -400614. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. K. H. Bhondge, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. D. V. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 06.10.2025.
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 12.11.2025
Judgment 2 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter is
taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the
parties and at the request of parties.
2. The Petitioner by this petition is challenging the order
dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur thereby invalidating
the caste claim of the Petitioner to the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe and
further action of Respondent No. 2 of withholding the pension of the
Petitioner.
3. It is contended that the Petitioner was appointed on
21.08.1981 as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the erstwhile
Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board, now Maharashtra
Jeevan Pradhikaran (Respondent No.2). The Petitioner has completed
his education of Diploma in Mechanical Engineer from Government
Polytechnic, Khamgaon and Government Polytechnic, Nagpur. The
Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Engineer vide order dt.
16.05.1994. During the course of his service nowhere is quoted to be
appointed or promoted under the reserved category i.e. Scheduled
Tribe. Despite such a situation, by a letter dated 11.05.2012, the
Judgment 3 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
Respondent No.2 called upon the Petitioner to submit his caste
certificate and application for verification. The Petitioner was
recruited in Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikar purely on the basis of his
diploma in Mechanical Engineering, however, just to obey the order
of the department vide a letter dated 08.06.2012, he has submitted
his proposal to Respondent No.1 along with documents.
4. In support of his tribe claim, the Petitioner submitted
following documents which are prior to the year 1976:
Sr. Description of Document Caste/ Date
No. Tribe
1 School Leaving extract of Vinayak Halba 08.07.1963
Maroti Mahajan (Primary School)
2 School Leaving extract of Vinayak Halba 02.07.1971
Maroti Mahajan (Secondary School)
3 School Leaving extract of Prabhakar Koshti 26.06.1973
Marotrao Mahajan (Secondary School)
5. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner retired from his services
on superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2014 on completion of 58 years of
age. Accordingly, the pension amount of the Petitioner was
sanctioned and he was being paid the pension in his bank account.
However, the Respondent No.1 by its order dated 29.12.2017,
invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner and cancelled the caste
certificate dated 07.07.1977, which is challenged in this petition.
Meanwhile, the Respondent No.2 stopped the pension of the
Judgment 4 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
Petitioner vide communication dated 15.01.2019, which is also
challenged in this petition.
6. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he was recruited
in the services of the Respondent No.2 solely on the basis of his
diploma in Mechanical Engineering and not on the basis of his caste,
therefore the decision of Respondent No. 2 in abruptly withholding
the pension of the Petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. The Petitioner
further contended by amendment that during the pendency of this
petition, the Government of Maharashtra has taken a decision in
respect of grant of pensionary benefits to the employees, whose caste
certificate have been invalidated and posted on super numerical post
and their continuation of services till the retirement vide Government
Resolution dated 14.12.2022. The Petitioner is also entitled to get the
benefits of the said decision.
7. The learned Counsel for Petitioner relied on the following
Citations:
(i) State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
& Anr., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210;
(ii) Gajanan Marotrao Nimje & Ors. Vs. Reserve Bank of
India & Ors., reported in (2019) 12 SCC 639;
(iii) Writ Petition No. 2397/2021, Ashok Natthuppa
Shelgenwar Vs. Accountant General (A & E), II
(Maharashtra), Nagpur & Ors., dated 27.07.2023;
Judgment 5 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
(iv) Writ Petition No. 248/2020, Shamrao Shrawanji Nikhare
(Dead) through his legal heirs Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Anr., dated
29.09.2023 and
(v) Writ Petition No.1917/2018, Ku. Mangala D/o
Aagmaiyya Tallewar Vs. The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Anr., dated 15.12.2023.
8. As against this, the Respondent No. 1 Committee has
relied on the following documents procured by the Vigilance Cell in
its inquiry, which are adverse to the claim of the Petitioner and
belonging to pre-constitutional period:
Sr. Document Name Relationship Caste Date
No. Type with the
petitioner
1 School Prabhakar Real brother Koshti 1962
document Maroti
Mahajan
2 School Prabhakar Real brother Koshti 26.06.1973
leaving Maroti
certificate Mahajan
9. The Respondent No. 1 Committee contended that the
oldest documents submitted by the Petitioner were single entry
documents and no corroborative documents were submitted by the
Petitioner. Also, there is no decisive social, ethnic, linguistic, or other
affinities between Halba Koshti sub-caste of Koshti Caste and Halba
tribe in Maharashtra. The Petitioner failed to prove his caste that he
Judgment 6 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
belongs to 'Halba' Schedule Tribe. The order passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee is legal and proper therefore, the Petitioner is not
entitled for any relief as claimed in the petition.
10. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the record of
the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of Assistant
Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
11. For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as
under :
12. The petitioner in the present petition is challenging the
order dated 29/12/2017, passed by respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur invalidating his caste
claim of Halba Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was appointed on
21/08/1981 as a Junior Engineer in erstwhile Maharashtra Water
Supply and Sewerage Board. On perusal of the appointment order,
Judgment 7 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
there is no reference of any appointment on reserved category. He
further promoted to the post of Deputy Engineer and accordingly, he
took over the charge. In that order also there is no reference of any
promotion on reserved post. In spite of this position, the respondents-
Department by letter dated 11/05/2012, called upon the petitioner to
submit original caste certificate and application for verification. The
petitioner stood retired on 31/12/2014 on superannuation on
completion of age of 58 years. Accordingly his pension was
computed, gratuity payment order was passed, pension amount was
sanctioned and granted and he was being paid with monthly pension.
The respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the
documents of the petitioner and without giving proper opportunity to
produce all the best possible evidence before the Scrutiny Committee,
the Committee invalidated the caste claim and also caste certificate
came to be invalidated. The petitioner issued letters on 09/08/2018
and 22/09/2018 to the respondent No.2 requesting to start pension
and also pointed out his grievance that all of sudden his pension has
been withheld without any intimation. It is a matter of record, that
during the pendency of this petition, GR dated 14/12/2022 came to
be issued, wherein the Government of Maharashtra has taken a
decision in respect of grant of pensionary benefits to the employees
whose caste certificate have been invalidated and who are posted on
Judgment 8 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
supernumerary post, they are continued in service till the retirement.
The petitioner is claiming that if the person, who is holding a
supernumerary post is entitled for the pension, the petitioner is also
entitled for the pension. In fact, there are judgments, wherein it is
held that if there is no adjudication of caste claim during the period
of service of the employee, his pension cannot be withheld
subsequently on rejection of his caste claim. Since 31/12/2014, the
petitioner is getting pension and all of a sudden his pension was
withheld by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is not justifiable. The
learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of
Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (supra),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para-17 as under:
"17. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the
executive instructions are not having statutory character
and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the
meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis of
such a circular, which is not having force of law, the
appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or
gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory Rules are
concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or
gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such
provision in these Rules, the position would have been
different."
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed
reliance on the judgment in Writ Petition No.2397 of 2021 (Ashok
Judgment 9 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
Natthuppa Shelgenwar v. Accountant General (A & E) and others )m
wherein this Court in paras-5 and 6 held as under:
"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the documents on record we find that
though the petitioner's caste claim was referred to the
Scrutiny Committee while he was in service, the same was
adjudicated only on 2.11.2020 which is after his retirement
on 31.10.2020. In other words, till the date of petitioner's
superannuation his claim has not been invalidated. There is
no order passed by any authority depriving the petitioner of
his retiral benefits. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another
(supra) withholding of pensionary benefits has to be
supported by a statutory order in that regard. Similar view
has been taken in R Sundaram (supra). In absence of any
such order the petitioner is not liable to be deprived of his
pensionary benefits.
6. We find from reading of paras 72 and 73 of the
decision in Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others (supra) that
while considering the case of a similarly situated person it
was noted that the claim of belonging to Mahadeo Koli was
held to be not admissible. The payment of retiral benefits
already effected was not interfered with. We find that in
absence of any statutory adjudication while the petitioner
was in service, he cannot be deprived of his retiral
benefits."
14. The learned counsel also relied on judgment in Writ
Petition No.248/2020 (Shamrao Shrawanji Nikhare (dead) through
his legal heirs (i) Mrs.Meena wd/o Shamrao Nikhare and others v.
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and one
another), wherein this Court held in para-6 and 7 as under:
Judgment 10 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
"6. In other words, till the date of the deceased
petitioner's superannuation, his claim has not been
invalidated. There is no order passed by any authority
depriving the petitioner of his retiral benefits, as held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava and another (supra) withholding of pensionary
benefits has to be supported by a statutory order in that
regard. Similar view has been taken in R Sundarama
(supra). In absence of any such order, the legal heirs of the
deceased employee are not liable to be deprived of the
pensionary benefits.
7. We find from paragraphs Nos.72 and 73 of the
decision in Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others (supra) that
while considering the case of similarly situated persons it
was noted that the claim of belonging to caste Mahadeo
Koli was held to be not admissible. The payment of retiral
benefits already effected was not interfered with. We find
that in absence of any statutory adjudication while the
deceased petitioner was in service, their legal heirs cannot
be deprived of his retiral benefits."
15. In view of all these judgments, one legal principle
emerges that if there is no adjudication on the caste claim of the
petitioner during his service tenure, it cannot withhold the pension of
the employee-petitioner. This Court in Writ Petition No.1917 of 2018
relying on the judgments of Shamrao Shravanji Nikhare (dead)
through Legal Heirs v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee and anr. (supra) and Ashok Nathuppa Shelgewar v.
Accountant General (A & E) (supra) held that in view of the GR
dated 14/12/2022, the government employee shall not be deprived
Judgment 11 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
of retiral benefits in view of the invalidation of the caste claim. In our
considered opinion, there was no order of appointment against the
reserved post or promotion on the reserved post. As such, in fact,
there is no necessity to forward caste claim for verification by the
employer-respondents. Thus, there was no necessity to refer the caste
certificate of the petitioner for validation before the Scrutiny
Committee. Even if, it is presumed that he claimed to be Halba,
however, his appointment is not against the post reserved for
Scheduled Tribe. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the
reference of the certificate is itself illegal. Even if the documents
produced by the petitioner and procured by the Vigilance Cell are
perused, there are Halba entries of 1963, Koshti entry of 1962 again
Halba entry of 1977. Thus, mixed entries of Halba and Koshti are
there in the documents, some entries of Halba are prior to cut-off
date, therefore, they are also required to be considered while
deciding the validity of certificate. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny
Committee relied on the judgment of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 995, however, it is observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that the said judgment is impliedly overruled by
the judgment of Jaywant Dilip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & oths.,
2018 (5) ALL MR 975 (S.C.) [Civil appeal No.2336 of 2011]. As such,
the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee as well as the
Judgment 12 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
respondents-Jivan Pradhikaran are required to be quashed and set
aside being illegal, in view of the judgments relied on by the
petitioner. It is settled position of law that if there is no adjudication
of caste certificate during the period of service of the petitioner, on
that ground his services can neither be terminated nor pension
benefits can be withheld.
16. As far as the old documents are concerned, the
documents placed on record by the Petitioner comprised of one
school leaving extract pertaining to primary school of the Petitioner
dating back to 08.07.1963. Another school leaving extract pertaining
to secondary school of the petitioner dated 02.07.1971. Both these
documents show the caste of the Petitioner as 'Halba', however, the
school leaving extract (secondary school) of the brother of the
petitioner Prabhakar Maroti Mahajan dated 26.06.1963 shows the
caste as Koshti is also submitted. On the other hand, the respondent
No.1-Committee has procured two adverse documents showing the
caste as Koshti pertaining to one of which is already placed on record
by the Petitioner and another document pertains to a school record
dating back to 1962. Considering the documents placed on record as
well as procured by the respondent No.1-Committee, it is observed
that they are of the same period and hence there is no reason to
Judgment 13 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
discard them. It would be beneficial to refer the Judgment in Priya
Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur & Ors., reported in 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :
"10. Insofar as the reliance on some of the entries
pertaining to petitioners relatives from paternal side
showing caste to be 'Koshti' on which Mr. Deshpande,
learned Counsel relies, are concerned, perusal of the said
document would reveal that though the caste of the said
person is written as Koshti, the profession is also shown as
weaving. As can be seen from the Gazetteer of Amravati
District, that Halbi's in erstwhile Ellichpur and Anjangaon
Surji in Daryapur Taluq in Amravati District were also
engaged in the profession of weaving. It is common
knowledge that persons engaged in the profession of
weaving were called as "Koshti". A possibility cannot be
ruled out that due to this, said entries might have recorded.
It is also relevant to refer to some portion from the
authority of R.V. Russell on Tribes and Castes of the Central
Provinces of India, published in 1916, wherein while
dealing with the Halba Tribe, it has been stated that "Some
of these soldiers may have migrated west and taken service
under the Gond Kings of Chanda, and their descendants
may now be represented by the Bhandara Zamindars, who,
however, if this theory be correct, have entirely forgotten
their origin. Others took up weaving and have become
amalgamated with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar."
Resultant to above observation, the order of the Scrutiny Committee
does not sustain. Hence, we pass the following order.
17. The petition is allowed.
Judgment 14 J-WP No.5164.2022.odt
18. The order dated 29/12/2017 passed in Case
No.lvk@vtizrl@ukx@III&376@31@12&13 by the respondent No.1-Caste
Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside so also the
impugned communication dated 15/01/2019 of respondent No.3 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
19. It is held and declared that the petitioner has duly
established that he belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe.
20. The respondent No.2-Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
and respondent No.3-Chief Account Officer are hereby directed to
release all the pensionary benefits if remained to be paid, including
gratuity and restart the pension with immediate effect.
21. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak / KHUNTE
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/11/2025 17:53:19
