{1}
wp 3200.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3200 OF 2016
1 Vaman S/o Namdeo Jadhav
age: 44 years, occu: servic,
as Superintendent, R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
2 Kantiram S/o Rupla Chavan,
age: 54 years, occu: service,
as Kamati, R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
3 Kamlbai W/o Vekanti Pawar,
age: 54 years, occu: service,
as Cook R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
4 Sonyabai w/o Baliram Rathod,
age: 53 years, occu: service,
as Cook R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
5 Devidas S/o Ramrao Rathod,
age: 34 years, oucc: service,
as Helper R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through: Its Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:20 :::
{2}
wp 3200.16.odt
2 The Director,
V.J.N.T., OBC & SBC Special
Assistant Department, Maharashtra State
Pune
3 The Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Assistant Commissioner,
Social welfare Department, Nanded
5 Shri Jemla Naik Primary (deleted)
Ashram School, Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District: Nanded
Through : Head Master Respondents
Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil advocate for the petitioners Mrs.A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 4 _______________ CORAM : R.M. BORDE, & P.R. BORA, JJ Date : 17th MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Heard.
2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final decision, at admission stage.
3 Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to delete name of respondent No.5. Leave granted. Name of respondent No.5 stands deleted.
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:20 :::{3} wp 3200.16.odt 4 The petitioners are praying for directions to the respondents to grant higher pay scales as well as benefits of Assured Career Progress Scheme (ACP scheme), since they have completed 12 years services from the date of their initial appointments and the Government Resolution dated 30.4.1998 entitles them to receive such benefits.
5 The respondent authorities have refused to scrutinize their proposals, contending that the scheme does not apply to the employees of Ashram Schools. The reason recorded by the respondents for their refusal to scrutinize the cases of the petitioners, is not sustainable, in view of the Judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.7256 of 2011 and other companion matters (Sunil Tukaram Ukande & others V/s State of Maharashtra) decided on 2.12.2013. In para No.5 of the Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:-
"5 The issue raised in the petitions is no more res integra in view of Judgment of the Division Bench at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.2358/2013 and other companion matters decided on Sept., 21st, 2013. The Division Bench in paragraph Nos.17 to 19 of the order has observed thus:-::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:20 :::
{4} wp 3200.16.odt "17. The Assured Career Progress Scheme is a welfare scheme which is basically brought about to remove stagnation as very few promotion avenues are available to Group 'C' and 'D' employees. The ACPS enable the eligible employees to be placed in higher pay scale. The eligible non-teaching staff of the aided Secondary Schools in Group 'C' and 'D' category gets the benefits of ACPS. But the similar category of employees in the aided private Ashram Schools who perform identical duties have been denied the benefit of ACPS which infringes their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The action of denial of benefits to the similarly placed employees discharging similar duties is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
18 Only on the basis of purported ground of financial cruch, we fail to understand the approach of the State Government of discriminating between the non-teaching staff of aided Ashram Schools and non- teaching staff of aided private Schools. At one stage both the Schools were functioning under the control of only one department.
19 In our view the denial of benefit of ACPS amounts to discrimination, which is hit by the rights guaranteed by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. " "
6. In view of above, the petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:20 :::{5} wp 3200.16.odt 7 The respondents are directed to examine cases of each of the individual petitioners, for deciding whether they have satisfied the criteria, laid down for claiming benefits under ACPS, applicable to the private aided schools, under the Government Resolution dated 30.4.1998 and as modified from time to time and if it is found that, the petitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria, the respondents shall extend the benefits to the petitioners.
Respondents shall scrutinize the cases of individuals, within a period of six months from today and extend the benefits to such of eligible petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of scrutiny of the proposals.
8 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
9 Writ petition stands disposed of.
(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
vbd
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:20 :::