Bombay High Court

GANESH BASWESHWAR PATTEWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

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

Holding

The court granted interim protection to the petitioner, directing him to appear before the Scrutiny Committee and prohibiting the employer from taking coercive action until the tribe claim is decided, subject to the petitioner’s cooperation.

Summary

The petitioner, Ganesh Basweshwar Pattewad, sought protection from his employer who issued a show‑cause notice demanding a caste validity certificate, alleging that his claim of belonging to the Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe was pending before the Scrutiny Committee since 2016. The State, through the A.G.P., contended that the petitioner had been negligent and had failed to cooperate with the Vigilance Cell report, causing delay in the decision. The Court noted the pending Scrutiny Committee report and ordered the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 5 February 2026 and file his reply by 16 February 2026, after which the Committee must decide within stipulated time. In the interest of justice, the Court directed that the employer could not take coercive action against the petitioner until the tribe claim is finally decided, but warned that the protection would be vacated if the petitioner does not cooperate. The petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the court can grant interim protection to a petitioner pending the decision of a Scheduled Tribe claim before the Scrutiny Committee
Whether alleged negligence by the petitioner in responding to the Vigilance Cell report precludes such protection

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe
tribe claim
Scrutiny Committee
caste validity certificate
interim relief
employer
negligence
protection

Judgment

                               (1)
                                               930 WP-894.2026.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           930 WRIT PETITION NO. 894 OF 2026

           GANESH BASWESHWAR PATTEWAD
                            VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND
                            OTHERS
                                …
     Mr. Manish Paithane, Advocate holding for Mr. M.A.
          Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
         Mr. P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents-State.
                                ...

                 CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                         ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                 DATED : 23 JANUARY 2026.

Per Court :

1.   Heard.


2.   Though the petitioner is making a grievance that the

tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to “Mannervarlu”

Scheduled Tribe is pending with the Scrutiny Committee since

09.12.2016 and the same is not being decided, however, the

learned A.G.P. has brought to our notice that the petitioner is

not diligent in pursuing the said tribe claim and on account of

negligence on the part of petitioner his tribe claim could not be

decided.


3.   According to learned A.G.P., Roznama depicts that on

several occasions the petitioner was called upon to file reply to

the Vigilance Cell report, but he did not turn up.
                                 (2)
                                                    930 WP-894.2026.odt



4.    Be that as it may, since the Vigilance Cell Report has

already been submitted to the Scrutiny Committee, we direct

the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on

05.02.2026 and file his reply.         If the reply is filed by the

petitioner by 16.02.2026, the Scrutiny Committee shall hear

the matter within two weeks thereafter and pass the order

within four weeks from the date on which the matter would be

heard.


5.    Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

employer of the petitioner has issued show-cause notice to the

petitioner on 01.01.2026 thereby calling upon the petitioner to

submit caste validity certificate, failing which service of the

petitioner will be brought to an end.       He, therefore, submits

that service of the petitioner be protected.


6.    In the interest of justice, till the tribe claim of the

petitioner is decided, the employer shall not take any coercive

action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the

petitioner failed to submit validity certificate.


7.    It is made clear that protection granted by this Court will

operate only till the caste claim of the petitioner is decided. We

however make it clear that if the petitioner fails to extend full
                               (3)
                                               930 WP-894.2026.odt
cooperation for decision of tribe claim expeditiously, the

protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated.


8.    With these directions, petition stands disposed of.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)                 (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
     JUDGE                                   JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…