Saheb Bhujang Gajbhare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1343 Bom

                                            1           19-wp1095.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                           
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO.1095 OF 2016




                                                   
    1] Saheb s/o. Bhujang Gajbhare,
       Age 37 years, Occ. Service,




                                                  
    2] Smt. Suman d/o. Laxmanrao
       Shendge, Age 40 years,
       Occ.Service,




                                          
    Both r/o. Shirali, Tq.Vasmat,
    Dist. Hingoli                                      ..Petitioners

                  versus
                              
    1] The State of Maharashtra,
                             
       Through its Secretary,
       Tribal Development Department, 
       Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
      

    2] The Commissioner, 
       Tribal Development, Nashik.
   



    3] The Additional Commissioner,
       Tribal Development, Amravati





    4] The Project Officer,
       Integrated Tribal Development 
       Project, Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli ..Respondents

                             --





    Mr.V.A.Dhakne, advocate for petitioners
    Mr.B.V.Virdhe, AGP for respondents - State
                             --

                                    CORAM :  S.S. SHINDE AND
                                             SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : APRIL 07 , 2016

2 19-wp1095.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :

Heard.

2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

petition is taken up for final disposal.

3] This petition is filed for direction to

respondent no.4 to consider the proposals of the

petitioners for granting higher pay scale under

Assured Career Progress Scheme on account of

completion of twelve years of service by them.

4] Learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited

our attention to the unreported judgment of the

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at

Principal Seat in the case of Kiran Namdeo Shinde

and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.

,

and connected petitions thereto, delivered on 21 st

3 19-wp1095.odt

September, 2013, and submits that, the High Court

has given a declaration that, benefit of Assured

Career Progress Scheme (for short 'the ACPS')

which is applicable to the employees of Group 'C'

and 'D' non teaching staff of the aided private

schools in the State under the Government

Resolution dated 30th April, 1998, as modified

from time to time, shall be available to the non

teaching staff of the same category in the private

aided Ashram Schools. Therefore, according to the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner, once such

declaration is there, same would apply even to the

Group 'C' and 'D' employees working under the

Trible Development Department.

5] We have heard learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioners, learned A.G.P. appearing for the

respondents. With their able assistance, perused

the impugned letter, contents of the petition,

annexures thereto and the judgment in the case of

Kiran Namdeo Shinde and ors. Vs. The State of

4 19-wp1095.odt

Maharashtra and ors . (cited supra). It is not in

dispute that even in the case of the employees

working under Group C and D from the Tribal

Development Department, the High Court has issued

directions to respondent no.1 to consider the cases

of the employees working in Group C and D non

teaching staff of the aided private schools,

working under the Tribal Development Department,

for the benefit of ACPS.

6] In that view of the matter, the respondents

are directed to examine the cases of the

petitioners for deciding whether they satisfy the

criteria laid down for claiming benefits under the

ACPS to the private aided Government 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 Scheme, and they satisfy the eligibility

criteria, the respondents shall extend the benefits

to the petitioners. The respondents shall

5 19-wp1095.odt

scrutinize the cases of the petitioners within a

period of six months, and extend them the benefits

as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within

a period of four months from such scrutiny.

7] Rule made absolute in above terms. The writ

petition stands disposed of in above terms.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

kbp