Bombay High Court
Chotulal Magan Pawar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 2-wp10102-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10102 OF 2015
1] Chotulal s/o. Magan Pawar,
Age 52 years, Occ. Service,
2] Dwarkabai Gajmal Pawar,
Age 53 years, Occ. Service,
3] Bebibai Shivdas Salve,
Age 38 years, Occ. Service,
4]
Ravindra Dangal Wadile,
Age 45 years, Occ. Service,
5] Vilas Pitambar Patil,
Age 52 years, Occ. Service,
6] Prakash Dhoman Patil,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service,
7] Hirabai Motiram Tavade,
Age 40 years, Occ. Service,
8] Sudam Indhan Jadhav,
Age 50 years, Occ. Service,
9] Dagdu Panditarao Marathe,
Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
All r/o. At Post. Varshi,
Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule ..Petitioners
versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Tribal
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:27:37 :::
2 2-wp10102-15.odt
2] The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department,
Nashik Division, Nashik,
Old Mumbai-Agra Road,
Gadkari Chowk, Nashik
3] The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development
Department, Dhule, Tq. and
Dist. Dhule
4] Prathmik Adhivasi, Ashram
School, Varshi, Tq. Shindkheda,
Dist. Dhule,
Through its Headmaster
5] Madhyamik Adhivasi, Ashram
School, Varshi, Tq. Shindkheda,
Dist. Dhule
Through its Headmaster ..Respondents
--
Mr.A.D.Pawar, advocate for petitioners
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Respondent nos.4 and 5 are served
--
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 15, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-S.S.Shinde,J.)
Heard.
3 2-wp10102-15.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the parties, the petition is taken up
for final disposal at admission stage.
3. The petitioners are the employees of aided
private Ashram Schools and are working as Class-III
and Class-IV employees. The petitioners were
appointed by following due process of law and their
appointments were approved by the competent
authorities. The petitioners are claiming their
entitlement to higher pay scale under Assured
Career Progress Scheme ( for short `the ACPS") on
completion of 12 years' of qualifying service from
the date of their initial appointments.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners
that the employees serving in private aided Ashram
Schools are discriminated, and have been denied
benefits whereas, the benefits are made available
to the Ashram Schools conducted by the Social
4 2-wp10102-15.odt
Welfare Department and other private aided schools
conducted by other Departments.
5. The issue raised in the petition is no
more res integra in view of judgment of the
Division Bench at the Principal Seat of the Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition No. 2358/2013 and other
companion matters decided on 21st September, 2013.
The Division Bench in paragraph nos. 17 to 19 of
the order has observed thus:-
"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 enables 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 benefit 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
5 2-wp10102-15.odt
similar duties is arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
18. Only on the basis of purported ground
of financial crunch, 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 Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
6. In view of the decision rendered by the
Division Bench, referred to above, the petition
deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly
allowed.
7. 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
6 2-wp10102-15.odt
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 they
satisfy the eligibility criteria, the respondents
shall extend the benefits to the petitioners. The
respondents shall scrutinize the cases of the
petitioners within a period of six months and shall
extend him the benefits to them as expeditiously as
possible, and preferably within a period of four
months from such scrutiny.
8. Rule made absolute in above terms. The writ
petition stands disposed of in above terms.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
