Bombay High Court
Dhanlal Limbaji Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 1627.16WP.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1627 OF 2016
Dhanlal S/o Limbaji Rathod
Age : 53 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Waranga Phata, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli
- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Help
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Director,
V.J.N.T., O.B.C. & S.B.C. Special
Help Department, Maharashtra State,
Pune.
3) The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Latur Division,
Latur.
4) The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Hingoli.
5) Vasantrao Naik Madhyamik Ashram
School, Waranga Phata,
Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.
*****
Mr.C.T. Jadhav h/f Mr.Ajay D.Pawar, Advocate for
Petitioner
Mr.S.D. Kaldate,AGP for State.
-----
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE :
25 th
July,2016.
2 1627.16WP.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-S.S.Shinde,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard
forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the
petition is taken up for final disposal at
admission stage.
3. The petitioner is the employee of aided
private Ashram School and is working as Class-III
and Class-IV employee. The petitioner was
appointed by following due process of law and his
appointment was approved by the competent
authorities. The petitioner is claiming his
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 his initial appointment.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner
that the employees serving in private aided
Ashram Schools are discriminated, and have been
denied benefits whereas, the benefits are made
3 1627.16WP.doc
available to the Ashram Schools conducted by the
Social 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 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 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
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
4 1627.16WP.doc
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, as referred to above, the
petition deserves to be allowed, and the same is
accordingly allowed.
7. The respondents are directed to examine
the case of the petitioner for deciding whether
he 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
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
5 1627.16WP.doc
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
scrutiny.
8. Rule made absolute in above terms. The
writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.R.BORA) (S.S.SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
