MARKHELKAR SAMDANI ABDUL WAHEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:24181-DB



                                                               916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                              -1-

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 8310 OF 2025

                         Baig Nawab s/o Sahebjani
                         Age : 59 years, Occu : Pensioner,
                         Presently residing at Bajaj Nagar, Pandharpur,
                         Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

                                          VERSUS

                   1.    The State of Maharashtra
                         Rural Development Department,
                         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
                         Through its Principal Secretary

                   2.    Zilla Parishad, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
                         Tq. And Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar,
                         Through its Chief Executive Officer

                                              ***
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar
              AGP for Respondent-State : Mr. V. M. Kagne
              Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Prashant R. Nangare
                                              ***
                                              AND
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 8329 OF 2025

                         Markhelkar Samdani s/o Abdul Wahed
                         Age : 60 years, Occu : Pensioner,
                         Presently residing at Kher Nagar, Udgir,
                         Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur

                                          VERSUS

                   1.    The State of Maharashtra
                         Rural Development Department,
                         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
                         Through its Principal Secretary

                   2.    Zilla Parishad, Latur,
                         Tq. And Dist. Latur,
                         Through its Chief Executive Officer
                                                   916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                  -2-

                                ***
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar
AGP for Respondent-State : Mr. V. M. Kagne
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. U. B. Bondar
                                ***

                    CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                            SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ.
                        Date : 17th June, 2026

PER COURT :


1.           Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of the parties.



2.           Since these petitions involve a similar set of facts and a

common question, shall be decided by this common judgment. Writ

petition No. 8329 of 2025 is taken as lead petition.



3.           The Petitioner was appointed as a Primary Teacher by

Respondent No. 2 (Zilla Parishad, Latur) vide an order dated

16.07.1992    against   a   vacancy     reserved   for   the   "Takankar"

Scheduled Tribe category. The services of the petitioner were

subsequently confirmed on 14.12.2009.



4.           In view of a Government Circular dated 18.05.2013,

the Respondents insisted on the submission of a Tribe Validity

Certificate. The Petitioner challenged this insistence before this
                                                    916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                    -3-

Court in Writ Petition No. 2716 of 2014. By an order dated

17.11.2014, this Court allowed the petition and protected the

Petitioner's services on the condition that he would not claim any

future benefits of reservation or promotion. The Petitioner duly filed

the required undertakings before the Scrutiny Committee and

Respondent No. 2 on 08.12.2014.



5.            Subsequently, the Petitioner retired from service upon

attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024. Following his

retirement,    the Block Education Officer,         Udgir,   forwarded a

proposal for the release of pension and pensionary benefits to the

Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, on 03.04.2024.



6.            Although   repeated         representations    were   made,

however, the Respondents have failed to release the regular

pension and other retiral benefits. The Respondents have orally

insisted that the Petitioner must submit a fresh proposal for

verification and obtain a Tribe Validity Certificate before his pension

can be sanctioned.



7.            Aggrieved by the inaction and the insistence on a

Validity Certificate which the Petitioner contends runs directly
                                                   916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                  -4-

counter to the service protection conferred by this Court vide order

dated 17.11.2014, the Petitioner has approached this Court

seeking a direction to immediately release his regular monthly

pension, arrears and all other retiral benefits.



8.          The   learned   counsel     for   petitioner   Mr.   Yeramwar

submits that the Petitioner's services stand protected pursuant to

order of this Court dated 17.11.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.

2716 of 2014.     The Petitioner strictly complied with the Court's

directions by submitting the necessary undertakings to both the

Scrutiny Committee and the employer on 08.12.2014, explicitly

waiving any future reservation or promotional benefits. Having

rendered continuous, confirmed service until his superannuation on

30.06.2024, the Petitioner cannot be deprived of his earned

pensionary benefits.



9.          The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that

the Respondents' insistence on a fresh Tribe Validity Certificate as

a precondition for releasing retiral benefits contravenes the order

of this Court.



10.         The learned counsel for the Respondents Mr. Nangre
                                                 916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                 -5-

and Mr. Bondar representing the Zilla Parishads oppose the petition

submitting that the petitioners were admittedly appointed against a

seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. It is contended

that a Tribe Validity Certificate remains a prerequisite for verifying

the legality of the initial appointment prior to sanctioning retiral

benefits. Therefore, the Respondents argue that the request for a

fresh verification proposal does not violate earlier orders but is a

necessary step to finalize the pension papers.



11.         Upon considering the submission advanced on behalf of

both the sides and perusing the material on record, there is no

debate that the petitioners were before this Court in Writ Petition

No. 2297 of 2014 and 2716 of 2014 wherein this Court has

observed in para No. 6 as under :

        “6. The respondent Zilla Parishad / employer shall not
        take any adverse action against the petitioners only on the
        ground that they have not obtained validity certificate in
        respect of their tribe claim. The petitioners, henceforth,
        shall not claim any benefit of reservation either for
        promotion and in employment and for that matter in any
        walk of life. The petitioners shall file undertaking before
        the Committee that they will not claim benefit of
        reservation and as such the proceedings seeking validity
        should not be decided. The appropriate entry in
        accordance with the present order shall be recorded in the
        service-book of the petitioners and such undertaking shall
        also be filed by the petitioners with the employer.”
                                                916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                  -6-



12.         The primary issue stands squarely covered in view of

directions issued by this Court. Admittedly, the Petitioners’ services

were protected by an order dated 17.11.2014 in Writ Petition No.

2716 of 2014. The said order protected the Petitioners from any

adverse action for want of a Tribe Validity Certificate, subject to the

condition that petitioner would not claim further reservation

benefits. The Petitioner fully complied with this stipulation by

presenting undertakings before both the Scrutiny Committee and

the Respondent-employer on 08.12.2014.



13.         Having accepted the aforesaid directions and allowed

the Petitioner to complete his service until superannuation on

30.06.2024, it is no longer open for the Respondents to contend

the contrary the requirement of a validity certificate at the post-

retirement stage.



14.         The fact remains that the Government Resolution

(G.R.) dated 15.06.1995 continues to be in vogue. As such, the

consequential protection and benefits conferred by the State, to

which the Petitioner is legally entitled, have been endorsed by this

Court. Furthermore, this legal position is reinforced by the
                                                 916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                   -7-

treatment of similarly situated employees. In Writ Petition No. 903

of 2020, where an employee's tribe claim was invalidated by the

Scrutiny Committee, this Court confirmed the service protection.

The State assailed that order before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No. 6212 of 2025, which eventually endorsed the view of

this Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, placing

reliance on Writ Petition No. 4318 of 2007 which has already

attained finality.



15.          In light of these peculiar facts and settled legal

precedents, the action initiated by the Respondents in withholding

the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner for want of a validity

certificate is apparently unjustified.



16.          The Respondents’ contention that the prior order

merely protected "service" but did not specifically direct the release

of "pension" is a completely misleading. It is a well-settled principle

of law that pension and pensionary benefits are not a bounty or a

standalone gratuity; rather, they constitute deferred wages earned

by    an   employee   through   long,    uninterrupted   and   judicially

protected service. Once the legality of the Petitioner’s entire tenure

until superannuation stands fully secured by order of this Court, all
                                                            916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                          -8-

consequential terminal benefits flow from it as an absolute, vested

right. Withholding pensionary benefits on the ground of non-

submission    of     a    validity   certificate    effectively    penalises   the

Petitioner   after       retirement,      rendering        the   2014   protection

completely hollow.



17.          The     insistence      of     the    Zilla    Parishad    authorities

demanding a fresh verification proposal post-retirement is legally

unsustainable, arbitrary and directly contradictory to the binding

orders of this Court. Consequently, the action of the Respondents

in withholding the regular monthly pension, accumulated arrears,

and all terminal benefits is declared illegal.



18.          The Respondents shall not insist on the submission of a

Tribe Validity Certificate as a condition precedent for releasing the

post-retirement benefits, in view of the finality attained to the said

issue vide order dated 17.11.2014 in Writ Petition No. 2716/2014.



19.          Resultantly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed in

terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C).


20.          The Respondent No. 2 (Zilla Parishad) is directed to

forthwith process, grant and release the regular monthly pension,
                                                    916 WP No.8310.2025 + 1
                                      -9-

accumulated pensionary arrears, and all other terminal benefits

due to the Petitioner.



21.           The   exercise   of     calculating   and   disbursing   the

pensionary arrears and terminal benefits shall be completed within

a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this order.



22.           Rule is made absolute in the above terms.



23.           No order as to costs.




(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH)                        (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
        JUDGE                                         JUDGE

Omkar Joshi