Vinod Marotrao Surdase And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7142 Bom

                                           1            17-wp12241.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                           
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                   
                     WRIT PETITION NO.12241 OF 2016

    1. Vinod s/o. Marotrao Surdase
       Age : 42 years, Occ. Service, 




                                                  
    2. Devanand s/o. Ramdas Ughade,
       Age : 31 years, Occ. Service,

       Both r/o. Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar,




                                          
       Dist. Nanded                                    ..Petitioners
                            
             Vs.
                              
    1. The State of Maharashtra,
       Through 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, Kinwat, 
       Dist. Nanded                                    ..Respondents

                             --





    Mr.V.A.Dhakne, Advocate for petitioners
    Mr.K.D.Mundhe, AGP for respondents 
                             --

                                    CORAM :  R.M. BORDE AND
                                             SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2016

2 17-wp12241.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J.)

Heard.

2. Rule. With the consent of the parties,

petition is taken up for final hearing at admission

stage.

3. 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.

4. The respondents authorities have refused

to scrutinise 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 scrutinise the cases of the

petitioners is not sustainable in view of the

3 17-wp12241.odt

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:-

"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-

4 17-wp12241.odt

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 ig 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 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

5 17-wp12241.odt

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."

5. In view of above, the petition deserves to

be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.

6. The respondents are directed to examine

cases of each of the individual petitioners for

deciding, whether they satisfy 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

6 17-wp12241.odt

respondents shall extend the benefits to the

petitioners. The respondents shall scrutinise the

cases of each petitioner 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.

7.

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

8. Writ petition stands disposed of.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]

kbp