Kiran Balkrishna Koyal v. State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. Tribal Development Dept And ANR

by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date:

2025.02.27 18:30:23 +0530 ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 19405 OF 2024 Kiran Balkrishna Koyal.

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

... Respondents.

**** Ms. Komal Gaikwad a/w. Mr. Siddhant Sawai h/f. Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. M.M. Pable, AGP for Respondent/State.

**** CORAM :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE :

25th FEBRUARY, 2025 P.C. :

1.

The Petitioner's claim of belonging to the Mannewar Schedule Tribe, is pending validation proceedings before the Committee after having been lodged on 9.5.2023. There is no validity holder amongst the paternal relations of the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims to have 3 pre-constitutional documents. He is in employment with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Security Cell as a security guard, which was a post reserved for the schedule tribe. 2.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off as the

learned AGP submits that the proceedings would be concluded on their merits on or before 30th June, 2025. Said statement is accepted. 3.

For easy correspondence, the Petitioner tenders his email address as :

Kg4144376@gmail.com 4.

The Committee would enter into correspondence with the Petitioner on the said email address. The Petitioner would cooperate for the early decision in the matter.

5.

Since the Petitioner is occupying the post reserved for a scheduled tribe category without a validity and he is in employment for more than two decades, we direct the Petitioner to tender an affidavit undertaking to the employer as well as this Court, within 21 days from today, stating therein that he will not claim any increment/promotion/pay fixation/pay revision/ service benefits, etc. until his claim is validated, either by Committee or this Court (in the event the Committee rejects his claim). Only on filing of such an affidavit undertaking, we direct the employer not to terminate the services of the Petitioner. If such affidavit is not filed within 21 days, there shall be no protection to the Petitioner.

6.

We permit the Petitioner to tender written notes in support of his case, while responding to the report of the Vigilance cell. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)