Bombay High Court
Prakash Shankarrao Pawar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp 2944.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2944 OF 2016
1 Prakash S/o Shankarrao Pawar,
age: 43 years, occu: service,
2 Sanjay S/o Sahebrao Likhe
age: 46 years, occu: service,
3 Raosaheb S/o Shivram Bhalerao
age: 49 years, occu: service,
4 Santosh S/o Jankiram Magar,
age: 45 years, occu: service,
5 Siraj Khan S/o Shabbeer Khan Pathan
age: 39 years, oucc: service,
All R/o Jay Durga Post Basic Adiwashi
Ashram School, Sakhartala Road,
Jintoor, Tq. Jintoor, Dist. Parbhani Petitioners
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 Respondents
...
Mr. Vijay A. Dhakne, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.B. Pulkundwar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents
...
{2}
wp 2944.16.odt
CORAM : R.M. BORDE, & P.R. BORA, JJ
Date : 18th 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 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 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
{3}
wp 2944.16.odt
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., 21 st, 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 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
{4}
wp 2944.16.odt
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 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 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.
{5}
wp 2944.16.odt
7 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
8 Writ petition stands disposed of.
(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
agp/2944-16
