Sanjay Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Sanjay vs State of Maharashtra and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Mar 29, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/369588

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/369588
Court: Mumbai High Court
Judge: A.P. Deshpande and; B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 29, 2005
Case Number: Writ Petiton No. 4026 of 2001
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- BOMBAY STAMP ACT, 1958. Schedule 1, Article 36: [Y.R. Meena, CJ & D.A. Mehta & A.S. Dave, JJ] Deed of Mortgage Liability to pay stamp duty Held, Any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letter...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjay

Advocate S.R. Narnaware, Adv.

Respondent

State of Maharashtra and ors.

Advocate A.S. Kilor, Adv. for Respondent No. 1,; S.W. Deshpande, Adv. for Respondent No. 2 and; S.A. Radke, Adv. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

Legal References

Reported In: [2005(105)FLR986]

Excerpt

- bombay stamp act, 1958. schedule 1, article 36: [y.r. meena, cj & d.a. mehta & a.s. dave, jj] deed of mortgage liability to pay stamp duty held, any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letters of hypothecation executed by farmers for agricultural and land development purposes in favour of all commercial bank etc. are entitled to remission of entire duty chargeable under the stamp act with effect on and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. .....undertaking in the petition that hereinafter the petitioner will not claim any of the benefits as are available to the members of the scheduled tribe, in case his services are protected.4. the apex court in the case of milind katware (cited supra) has protected all such appointments and admissions, which has become final till the date of the judgment delivered by the apex court on 28th november, 2000.5. in that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner is also entitled for the protection of his services. the learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 3 and i has fairly submitted that the post of primary teacher is kept vacant in respondent no. 3 zilla parishad school. hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:orderthe order passed by respondent no. 2 scheduled tribes caste certificates scrutiny committee dated 21st may, 2001 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is upheld. the order dated 21st may, 2001 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of primary teacher.it is made clear that since the petitioner has not actually worked from the date of termination he will not be entitled to back wages. however, he will be entitled to continuity of his service. it is further made clear that the petitioner will not claim any of the benefits as are available to the members of the scheduled tribe.there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

The petitioner was appointed on 31.8.2000 as teacher in the Primary School managed by respondent No. 1 Zilla Parishad. The petitioner was appointed on the seat reserved fur scheduled tribe on the basis of claim of the petitioner belonging to Halba caste. The case of the petitioner was referred by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad for verification of the caste claim to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21st May, 2001 rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. The service; of the petitioner consequently came to be terminated on 5.11.2001.

2. Though the petitioner has initially challenged the validity of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has restricted his claim during the course of hearing, only for protection of his services on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1.

3. The petitioner has given an undertaking in the petition that hereinafter the petitioner will not claim any of the benefits as are available to the members of the scheduled tribe, in case his services are protected.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Milind Katware (cited supra) has protected all such appointments and admissions, which has become final till the date of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court on 28th November, 2000.

5. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner is also entitled for the protection of his services. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and I has fairly submitted that the post of Primary Teacher is kept vacant in respondent No. 3 Zilla Parishad School. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

ORDER

The order passed by respondent No. 2 Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny committee dated 21st May, 2001 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is upheld. The order dated 21st May, 2001 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Primary Teacher.

It is made clear that since the petitioner has not actually worked from the date of termination he will not be entitled to back wages. However, he will be entitled to continuity of his service. It is further made clear that the petitioner will not claim any of the benefits as are available to the members of the scheduled tribe.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Mumbai · 2005 Same Parties Sanjay vs State of Maharashtra and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge A.P. Deshpande and; B.R. Gavai, JJ.

Service