Balkrushna Gopal Dudhkawade vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3559 Bom

                                          1                           wp5188-2016



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                          
                                                 
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 5188 OF 2016


    Balkrushna s/o Gopal Dudhkawade,
    Age : 41 years, Occu. Service,




                                                
    R/o Manganali, Tq. Kandhar,
    District Nanded                                                   PETITIONER

           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





    5.     The Project Officer,
           Integrated Tribal Development
           Project, Kinwat, Dist. Nanded





    6.     The Project Officer,
           Integrated Tribal Development
           Project, Akola, District Akola                    RESPONDENTS

                              ----
    Mr. Vijay A. Dhakne, Advocate for the Petitioner
    Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the respondents
                              ----




         ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2016             ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:10:28 :::
                                                  2                           wp5188-2016

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

DATE : 4th JULY, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.S. SHINDE, J.) :

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith

with the consent of learned Counsel for parties.

3.

This petition takes exception to the decision

of the respondents, thereby denying the benefits of

higher pay scale to the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner 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 21st 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 Ashram

schools in the State under the Government Resolution

3 wp5188-2016

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 Tribal

Development Department.

5. On the contrary, learned A.G.P. appearing for

the respondents, vehemently opposed the prayer made in

the petition, and submits that, concerned Department has

issued instructions to all of the officers and relying

upon the instructions issued by the Department in the

Mantralaya, the respondents have refused to grant the

benefits of higher pay scale to the petitioner.

6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondents and

with their able assistance, perused the contents of the

petition, annexures thereto and the judgment delivered

by this Court on 19th November, 2015 in the case of

Shamrao s/o Manikrao Mohite Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and others (Exhibit-C to the petition), in which the

decision in the case of Kiran Namdeo Shinde and ors.

4 wp5188-2016

(supra) is relied upon. It is not in dispute that even

in the case of 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. In that view of the matter, the writ petition

deserves to be allowed.

7. The respondents are directed to examine the

case of the petitioner for deciding whether he satisfies

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

petitioner is entitled to claim benefits under the

Scheme, and he satisfies the eligibility criteria, the

respondents shall extend the benefits to the petitioner.

The respondents shall scrutinize the case of the

petitioner within a period of six months, and extend him

the benefits as expeditiously as possible, and

preferably within a period of four months from such

5 wp5188-2016

scrutiny.

8. Rule made absolute in above terms.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of in above

terms.

                     Sd/-                             Sd/-
           [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]                  [S.S. SHINDE]
                   JUDGE                             JUDGE




                                       
    npj/wp5188-2016