Mangal Dagadu More vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010279802023

WP-13598-2023.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13598 OF 2023
Mangal Dagadu More
Aged 62 years, Occ.: Service,
resident of At Post. Ahire,
Tal. Khandala, Dist. Satara ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Tribal
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Pune through its Member Secretary,
having its office at Pune, Dist. Pune
3. Primary Health Centre Ahire,
through its Medical Officer (Group-A)
having its office at Tal. Khadala,
Dist. Satara. ...Respondents
_______
Mr R. K. Mendadkar for Petitioner.
Mr Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State.
_______
Digitally
signed by
AJIT
RAMESH
PATHRIKAR
Date:
2026.10.19
19:56:28
+0530
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AJIT
RAMESH
PATHRIKAR
DR. NEELA GOKHALE , JJ.
th
RESERVED ON: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 19 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT: (Per Dr Neela Gokhale , J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter
is heard finally.
2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
th
the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 11 February 2022
passed by Respondent No. 2, the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Pune,
Page 1 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
which invalidated the Petitioner's caste certificate following her superannuation
from the post of peon with Respondent No. 3, the Primary Health Centre.
3. The facts leading to the present proceedings are that the Petitioner claims to
belong to the Thakar Tribe. The competent authority granted her a caste certificate
th
dated 30 January 2009, certifying that she belonged to the Thakar Tribe. She was
employed as a peon at Respondent No. 3, Primary Health Centre. By an
th
application dated 7 October 2009, the Petitioner sought verification of her
certificate from the Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee. She submitted evidence,
including her school records and revenue records, prior to the deemed date, i.e.,
1918, 1919, 1924, 1930, 1932, 1935 and 1940, in favour of her blood relatives on
the paternal side, showing their duly recorded caste as Thakar. She also furnished
the caste validity certificate of her real brother, granted by Respondent No. 2
Committee, following a thorough vigilance enquiry and in accordance with law.
4. Earlier on a very peculiar reason, her caste certificate was invalidated by an
th
order dated 4 November 2019 of the Scrutiny Committee on a technical ground
that it was not in the prescribed Form-C. She was given liberty to obtain a fresh
caste certificate in the prescribed form and to file a fresh application for its
validation before the Respondent No.2 Committee.
th
5. On 10 November 2020, she obtained a fresh caste certificate from the
competent authority in the prescribed form, which shows that she belonged to the
Thakar Scheduled Tribe. She also submitted the caste validity certificate of her real
brother, namely Murlidhar Dagduji More, issued by the Respondent No.2
Page 2 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
st
Committee. On 31 May 2020, after 38 years of unblemished service, she
superannuated. However, because she was not issued a caste validity certificate, she
was made to forgo her right to be considered for promotion. In fact, she was never
considered for promotion solely because her validity certificate was not available.
This apart her grievance is that, even after her retirement, the pensionary benefits,
including gratuity and other retirement benefits, have been withheld for want of
the caste validity certificate.
6. On 20th December 2021, the Committee referred the Petitioner’s case to
th
the vigilance cell. She was called for hearing on 9 February 2022, and pursuant to
th
that hearing, the Committee invalidated her tribe claim by its order dated 11
February 2022. It is this order which is assailed in the present petition.
7. Mr R. K. Mendadkar, learned counsel, appeared for the Petitioner, and Mr
Aditya Deolekar, learned AGP, represented the State.
8. Mr Mendadkar has assailed the decision-making process of the Respondent
No. 2 Committee, contending that the Committee failed to consider the evidence,
including a plethora of documents clearly demonstrating that the Petitioner
belonged to the Thakar community. He submitted that the order invalidating the
Petitioner’s caste certificate is contrary to well-settled principles of law.
Documentary evidence predating the Constitution, relating to the Petitioner’s
blood relatives in the years 1918, 1919, 1923, 1924, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1935,
1939, 1940 and 1944, in the form of birth certificates, death certificates and school
records, as well as several mutation entries, have consistently recorded the
Page 3 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
Petitioner’s blood relatives as belonging to the Thakar community. Moreover, the
Committee failed to consider that the Petitioner’s ‘real brother’ was also issued a
caste validity certificate as belonging to the Thakar community. In these
circumstances, Mr Mendadkar submitted that the impugned order was passed
without application of mind and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. Mr Mendadkar further stated that the Petitioner is now superannuated. She
has not received any retiral benefits due to the invalidation of her caste validity
certificate. She is suffering from knee trauma and has been undergoing treatment
since 2021. She was also hospitalised in March 2023. Because of her medical
condition, she was unable to assail the order earlier but has now sought the said
relief by filing the present petition. The delay in approaching the Court is thus
inadvertent and due to medical reasons. Mr Mendadkar thus urges this Court to
allow the petition and grant the reliefs as prayed.
10. Mr Deolekar, learned AGP, has vehemently contested the petition
supporting the impugned order and prayed that it be rejected.
Analysis:
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At
the outset, we may observe that the issue that at the fag end of the service and/or
upon retirement merely for the reason that a caste validity certificate was not
submitted when the employee was permitted to discharge the duties throughout
and superannuated, is no longer res integra. This Court in Ratnamala Anilkumar
Page 4 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
1
Swami vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , while referring to a series of decisions of
the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, held that the employer cannot deny the
grant of family pension to the Petitioner therein, which being the recognition of
the long service rendered by her, and that the employee cannot be left in penury,
destitution and suffering in the twilight of her life, throughout the Petitioner’s
service, the absence of a caste validity certificate was never held against her, nor
were any disciplinary proceedings initiated. Only after her retirement did
Respondent No. 3 point out the invalidation of the caste certificate.
12. It is not the Respondent’s case that it had, in any manner, invoked the
provisions of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backwards Classes and
Special Backwards Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000, to discharge her from service in the absence of validation of
her certificate. It is an admitted fact that the State Government, vide Government
th
Resolution dated 27 December 2019, has taken a policy decision to protect the
services of candidates who belong to the Scheduled Tribes in circumstances of
invalidation of their caste certificate, as a humanitarian measure, for the long years
of service rendered by such employees. The relevant paragraphs No. 4.1 and 4.2 of
th
the GR dated 27 December 2019 read as below:
“4.1 On account of non-submission of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Validity
Certificate, all Administrative Departments concerned shall, pursuant to this
Government Resolution, create supernumerary posts in the cadre of the posts currently
held by such Officers and Employees, equivalent to the number of Officers and
Employees whose services are being transferred to supernumerary posts and all the
th
1 Writ Petition No. 2684 of 2026 decided on 10 August 2026
Page 5 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
Administrative Departments concerned, on humanitarian grounds and to obviate
administrative exigencies, shall appoint such Officers and Employees to the said
supernumerary posts on a purely temporary basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months or
until the date on which they would have retired, if they had continued in service,
whichever is earlier.
4.2 As regards those Officers and Employees who were discharged from service prior
to the issuance of this Government Resolution, all Administrative Departments
concerned shall create supernumerary posts in the cadre of the post held by such
Officers and Employees prior to their termination from the service and shall, on
humanitarian grounds and to obviate administrative exigencies, appoint them to the
said supernumerary posts on a purely temporary basis for a period of 11 (eleven)
months, or until the date on which they would have retired if they had continued in
service, whichever is earlier.”
13. Thus, it appears that the State Government was concerned with the plight
of employees who suffered because they had not procured a caste validity
certificate, or because the certificate was invalidated by the scrutiny committee only
after long years of service had been rendered by the said employees. There are a
series of decisions in this regard.
14. Further to the decisions cited at the Bar, it is clear that such issues had
reached the Courts. We find that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
2
Prakash S/o Fulchand Barwal & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors .
considered a similar situation, wherein the petitioner, who belonged to the
Scheduled Tribe category, had expired. He was appointed as a peon in 1988 against
a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes. His Caste Certificate was referred to the Caste
Scrutiny Committee for verification, which invalidated his claim vide order dated
th
30 September 1989. Consequently, his services were terminated vide order dated
th
10 December 1989. The appeal preferred against the said order was also
dismissed. He expired during the pendency of the said petition. In these
2 Writ Petition No.3718 of 1994 decided on 12.08.2010.
Page 6 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
circumstances, the Court recognised the entitlement of the legal heirs to the grant
of family pension. The relevant observations read thus:
“2] The original petitioner was appointed as Peon by the respondent no.4 by the order
dated 11.7.1988. The petitioner's appointment was against a post reserved for scheduled
tribe. As such the claim of the petitioner was referred to the scheduled tribe caste
verification committee. The said committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner vide
order dated 30.9.1989. On the ground of invalidation, the petitioner's services came to
be terminated vide order dated 10.12.1989. The appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order of the caste verification committee was dismissed on 27.10.1993. Being
aggrieved thereby, the present petition was filed.
3] While granting Rule, this Court had granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause
(B). As such in pursuance to the interim order, the petitioner was to work as a Peon with
the respondent no.4. Subsequently, Civil Application No. 5571/1994 was filed by the
respondent no.4 for vacating the interim relief. The same came to be rejected.
4] During pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner has died and his legal
heirs are brought on record. Since the original petitioner has already died, the question
regarding his claim of belonging to scheduled tribe does not arise. The legal heirs of the
original petitioner have restricted the claim in the present petition only for grant of
family pension.
5] The petitioner was originally appointed on 18.7.1988. By virtue of interim order
passed in the year 1994, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. The original
petitioner has died on 5.12.2003. Considering the date of appointment of the original
petitioner to be 11/18.7.1988, the original petitioner has rendered the service of more
than 15 years. As such the petitioner's widow would be entitled to the family pension.
We accordingly extend the benefit of family pension to the widow of the original
petitioner i.e. present petitioner no.1 - Smt. Shobhabai w/o Prakash Barwal.
6] We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to give the
benefits of family pension to the widow of the original petitioner from the date of his
death i.e. 5.12.2003. The said benefit be extended to the widow of the petitioner
namely Smt. Shobhabai w/o Prakash Barwal within a period of six months from today
along with the arrears. No order as to costs.”
[emphasis supplied]
15. The decision in Prakash s/o Fulchand Barwal (supra) was followed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saraswati w/o Nagnath Mupde vs.
3
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. , in which the husband of the Petitioner was
working as a teacher and had been appointed to a post reserved for the Scheduled
Tribe category. His Caste Certificate was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny
3 Writ Petition No.7986 of 2020 decided on 02.05.2024.
Page 7 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
Committee. Considering the decision in Prakash s/o Fulchand Barwal (supra), the
Court made the following observations:
“5. It was held in Prakash Barwal (supra), that the LR’s were entitled for the
pensionary benefits since the bread earner had passed away while in service. Family
pension was, therefore, directed to be paid to the widow from the date of his death. In
Sunita W/o Late Pradip Thakar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others. 2022 (1)
Mh.L.J. 219 , this Court dealt with the claim of a widow and following the law laid down
in Prakash Barwal (supra), this Court also granted the pensionary benefits. The
Petitioner's case is practically identical to both reported judgments.
6. We are informed that the Petitioner was receiving provisional pension, which was
subsequently discontinued.
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed with the following
directions:
A) Respondent No. 3/Headmaster would forward the proposal of the Petitioner, as a
widow, for receiving the pension, to Respondent No.4/Education Officer (Primary),
within 30 day from today.
B) the said proposal would be dealt with by the appropriate Authorities and considering
the order of this Court in Prakash Barwal (supra) and Sunita Thakur (supra), the
Petitioner shall be entitled for pension from the date of the demise of her husband.
C) The arrears be calculated and be paid to the Petitioner on or before 30.11.2024, if
not already paid, and the commencement of payment of pension shall be from the
month of June, 2024. In the meanwhile, the provisional pension shall continue and
such amounts received by way of provisional pension would be adjusted as against the
arrears of pension.
D) Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.”
[emphasis supplied]
16. In a recent decision in the case of Manda w/o Prakash Sonawane vs. The
4
State of Maharashtra and Ors. , the deceased husband of the petitioner therein was
the only bread earner. He was selected and appointed to a post reserved for the
th th
backward category. He retired on 30 June 2020 and passed away on 18 July
2022. There was no dispute regarding pensionary benefits and entitlement to
retiral benefits. The employer, however, took a stand that the same would not be
payable to the legal representatives of the petitioner, since the deceased employee
did not tender the Caste Validity Certificate, and since the employee’s claim of
4 Writ Petition No.13426 of 2024 decided on 15.10.2024.
Page 8 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
belonging to the reserved category was not validated, the petitioner would not be
entitled to the grant of family pension. It is in these circumstances that a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Manda w/o Prakash Sonawane (supra), relying
on the decision of this Court in the matter of Kamlabai w/o Shaphadu Salve Vs. the
5
State of Maharashtra & Ors. , and also the Supreme Court in the matter of
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Jagdish
6
Balaram Bahira and Ors. recognized the entitlement to family pension and other
reliefs and made the following observations:
“8. In similar set of facts, this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge and S.G. Mehare, JJ.)
th
delivered a Judgment on 20 July, 2021 in Writ Petition No.6485 of 2020 at
Aurangabad (Sunita w/o Late Pradip Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and by
th
placing reliance on a Judgment of this Court, dated 12 August, 2010 delivered in Writ
Petition No.3718 of 1994 (Prakash Fulchand Barwal since deceased through his Legal
Heirs Smt. Shobhabai Barwal and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.),
allowed the claim of Sunita and directed the payment of family pension and all retiral
benefits as would have been admissible to the deceased employee had he normally
superannuated from service. For similar reasons, this Court has delivered several
Judgments which are annexed to the Petition paper-book.
9. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).
Necessary papers for releasing the family pension payable to the eligible Legal
Representatives of the deceased Employee, shall be moved by the Employer within 30
days and it shall be the duty of the Employer, as well as the Authorities concerned, to
ensure that the arrears of pension are paid to the eligible Legal Representatives, within a
period of 90 days from today. Gratuity amount shall also be paid within a period of 60
days with admissible statutory interest @ 12% per annum in the light of the
th
Government Notification dated 5 October, 1999 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare.
Needless to state, that the LRs of the deceased would co-operate with the authorities, if
the preparation of the papers.
10. It is made clear that if any of the eligible Legal Representatives of the deceased
Employee, desire to seek compassionate employment, the law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in Om Bhagwanrao Anjanwad vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,
(Full Bench), 2022 (4) Mh.L.J. 723, would be squarely applicable.”
5 Writ Petition No.4624 of 2021 decided on 01.10.2021.
6 2017 (8) SCC 670
Page 9 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09

WP-13598-2023.DOC
17. Recently the Supreme Court, in the matter of Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur
7
vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee and Anr. , while exercising its powers although
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed that the Appellant therein
is entitled to pensionary benefits because she had rendered long years of service,
even though her caste certificate was invalidated after she superannuated.
18. Considering the aforesaid consistent view taken by the Supreme Court as
well as this Court, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner cannot be deprived of
her retiral benefits solely on the ground of the post-retirement invalidation of her
caste certificate.
19. In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. The judgment
th
and order dated 11 February 2022 is quashed and set aside.
20. Respondent No.3 is directed to release the pensionary benefits, gratuity
amount and other retiral benefits entitled to her within a period of three weeks
from the date on which this order is uploaded along with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum from the date such payments were due.
21. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE , J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
st
7 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15632 of 2021 decided on 1 April 2024
Page 10 of 10
Ajit Pathrikar
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 20:03:09
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)