Bombay High Court

RUKMIN SONAJI TOTEWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee must decide the petitioner’s tribe claim within six months and the employer cannot take coercive action against the petitioner pending that decision.

Summary

The petitioner, Rukmin Sonaji Totewad, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide his claim of belonging to the Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe. He alleged that his employer had issued a show‑cause notice demanding a tribe‑validity certificate, threatening termination of his services. The Court noted a discrepancy in the dates of submission of the tribe claim but accepted the actual submission date of 3 October 2025. It directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim within six months and ordered that the employer refrain from any coercive action against the petitioner pending that decision. The protection was limited to the period until the claim is decided, and the petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection from employer action pending determination of his Scheduled Tribe claim
Whether the Scrutiny Committee must be directed to decide the tribe claim within a specific time‑frame
Whether the employer can terminate services for non‑submission of a tribe validity certificate

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe claim
Scrutiny Committee
interim relief
show cause notice
employment termination
tribe validity certificate

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:16112-DB


                                                                       954-wp-3863-2026
                                                    -1-

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   954 WRIT PETITION NO. 3863 OF 2026

                                      Rukmin Sonaji Totewad
                                             VERSUS
                       The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Ors
                                                 ...
                Mr. A. D. Sonkawade h/f. Mr. Sainath Gangadhar Jayewar, Advocate
                for the Petitioner
                Ms. A. S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondents/State
                                                 ...
                                       CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                               ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                       DATED : 10TH APRIL 2026
                ORDER (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.) :-

                1.        Heard.

                2.        By this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to

                Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee to decide his tribe claim of

                belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe.

                3.        Though in the prayer clause the petitioner has mentioned date

                of submission of proposal of his tribe claim as 08.08.2025, however

                the record depicts that the said proposal appears to have been

                submitted on 03.10.2025. During the pendency of said proposal the

                employer of the petitioner has issued a show cause notice dated

                16.03.2026 calling upon the petitioner to submit the validity

                certificate failing which the services of the petitioner would be

                brought to an end.

                Narwade
                                                           954-wp-3863-2026
                                      -2-

4.        Considering the same, we direct Respondent No.2/Scrutiny

Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner submitted on

03.10.2025 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a

period of six (6) months from today.

5.        Till the tribe claim of the petitioner is decided, the employer/s

of the petitioner shall not take any coercive action against the

petitioner solely on the ground of non-submission of tribe validity

certificate.

6.        Needless to state that the protection granted by this Court will

operate only till the tribe claim of the petitioner is decided and the

petitioner will not claim any equity.

7.        With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of.



[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.]                    [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]




Narwade

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…