Prakash Nandu Rathod And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 500 Bom
Judgement Date : 6 March, 2017

Bombay High Court
Prakash Nandu Rathod And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 March, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
                                1       5-WP-10500 and ors.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 WRIT PETITION NO.10500 OF 2016

Sanjay s/o. Balajirao Kakade,
Age : 34 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Pu. Ahilyadevi Holkar
Prathmik Ashram School,
Hasapur, 
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
and others                                  ..Petitioners

              Vs.

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Help
Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai - 32
and others                                  ..Respondents

                               AND
                 WRIT PETITION NO.11078 OF 2016

Prakash s/o. Pandurang Ghuge,
Age : 46 years, Occ. Service 
r/o. Itoli (Tanda), Tq. Jintur,
Dist. Parbhani 
and another                                 ..Petitioners

              Vs.

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Help
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32 
and others                                  ..Respondents




 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017           ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:42:12 :::
                                  2       5-WP-10500 and ors.odt


                                AND
                  WRIT PETITION NO.11123 OF 2016
Prakash s/o. Nandu Rathod,
Age : 45 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Wadoda-Bajar,
Tq. Phulambri, 
Dist. Aurangabad                             ..Petitioners

               Vs.

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Help
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32 
and others                                   ..Respondents
                                AND
                  WRIT PETITION NO.12892 OF 2016

Pralhad s/o. Bhagwan Talekar,
Age : 36 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Marathwadi Tanda,
Tq. Ashri, Dist. Beed
and others                                   ..Petitioners

               Vs.

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Help
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32 
and others                                ..Respondents
                              --
Mr.D.S.Kudale,   Advocate   for   petitioners   in   W.P. 
No.10500   of   2016   and   Mr.A.D.Pawar,   Advocate   for 
petitioners in W.P. Nos.11078, 11123 and 12892 of 
2016
Mr.S.B.Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4




  ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017           ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:42:12 :::
                                       3         5-WP-10500 and ors.odt




                                 CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                          SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : MARCH 06, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. These petitions are filed for giving direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for giving them benefit of the Assured Career Progress Scheme ("ACPS", for short).

3. The statements made by both sides show that the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Bombay in Writ Petition No.2358 of 2013 (Kiran Namdeo Shinde and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.) and other companion Writ Petitions, vide the judgment delivered on 21.09.2013 has decided the issue of entitlement of the non-teaching staff of Ashram School to get ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:42:12 ::: 4 5-WP-10500 and ors.odt higher pay scale. That decision was followed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1002 of 2016 (Ramling s/o. Amrutrao Patil and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.) decided on 15.04.2016.

4. As the point raised in this petition is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2358 of 2013, referred to above, we pass the following order :-

5. All the present Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to examine the case of each individual petitioner for deciding whether, they satisfy the criteria laid down for claiming benefits under the ACPS to the private aided schools under the Government Resolution dated 30th April 1998, as modified from time to time, and if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to claim benefits under the ACPS and if they satisfy the eligibility ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:42:12 ::: 5 5-WP-10500 and ors.odt criteria, the respondents shall extend the benefits to the petitioners. The respondents shall scrutinize the case of the individual petitioner within a period of six months and extend the benefits to such of the petitioners who are found eligible, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from such scrutiny.

6. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

         Sd/-                                    Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.]                 [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]


kbp




  ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:42:12 :::