Bombay High Court
Dadarao Dattarao Sangale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 December, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6563 OF 2016
1. Dadarao s/o Dattarao Sangale,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
District Hingoli
2. Manik s/o Gangadhar Gadhave,
Age : 44 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
District Hingoli
3. Gangadhar s/o Sambhaji Bansode,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
District Hingoli PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The District Social Welfare
Officer, Hingoli
3. Shivneri Prathamik Ashram School,
Jawla Bazar, through Principal
at Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
District Hingoli RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. Satish B. Parnere, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S.B. Joshi, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
----
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 22nd December, 2016
2 wp6563-2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J.) :
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
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 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
3 wp6563-2016
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-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
4 wp6563-2016
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 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
5 wp6563-2016
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. 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 the above terms.
8. Writ petition stands disposed of.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [R.M. BORDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp6563-2016
