Bombay High Court
Vaman Namdeo Jadhav And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 17 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp 3200.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3200 OF 2016
1 Vaman S/o Namdeo Jadhav
age: 44 years, occu: servic,
as Superintendent, R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
2 Kantiram S/o Rupla Chavan,
age: 54 years, occu: service,
as Kamati, R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
3 Kamlbai W/o Vekanti Pawar,
age: 54 years, occu: service,
as Cook R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
4 Sonyabai w/o Baliram Rathod,
age: 53 years, occu: service,
as Cook R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
5 Devidas S/o Ramrao Rathod,
age: 34 years, oucc: service,
as Helper R/o
C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through: Its Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:20 :::
{2}
wp 3200.16.odt
2 The Director,
V.J.N.T., OBC & SBC Special
Assistant Department, Maharashtra State
Pune
3 The Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Latur Division, Latur.
4 The Assistant Commissioner,
Social welfare Department, Nanded
5 Shri Jemla Naik Primary (deleted)
Ashram School, Saknur, Post Baharali
Tq. Mukhed, District: Nanded
Through : Head Master Respondents
Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents
_______________
CORAM : R.M. BORDE, & P.R. BORA, JJ
Date : 17th MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Heard.
2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final decision, at admission stage.
3 Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to delete
name of respondent No.5. Leave granted. Name of respondent
No.5 stands deleted.
{3}
wp 3200.16.odt
4 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.
5 The respondent authorities have refused to scrutinize 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 scrutinize 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 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:-
{4}
wp 3200.16.odt
"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 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 cruch, 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. " "
6. In view of above, the petition deserves to be allowed and
the same is accordingly allowed.
{5}
wp 3200.16.odt
7 The respondents are directed to examine cases of each of
the individual petitioners, for deciding whether they have satisfied
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
respondents shall extend the benefits to the petitioners.
Respondents shall scrutinize the cases of individuals, 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.
8 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
9 Writ petition stands disposed of.
(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
vbd
