Bombay High Court
Bharat Dagaji Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 April, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 5738.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5738 OF 2017
1. Bharat Dagaji Patil,
Age : 42 years, Occu. : Service,
2. Smt. Balubai Santosh Bhambare,
Age: 40 years, Occu. : Service,
3. Kishor Bhimrao Desale,
Age;- 42 years, Occu. :- Service,
4. Manoj S/o Hiralal Thakare,
Age:- 34 years, Occu. :- Service,
5. Santip s/o Vishwas Desale,
Age :- 31 years, Occu. :- Service,
All Petitioner No. 1 to 5 are
R/o Village Malich, Tq. Sindhkheda,
Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department
Nasik Division, Old Mumbai Agra Road,
Gadkari Chowk, Nasik.
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2017 00:41:40 :::
2 wp 5738.17
3. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development
Department, Dhule,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule. .. Respondents
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri V. S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the
parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission
stage.
3. The petitioners are the employees of aided private Ashram
Schools and are working as Class-III and Class-IV employees.
The petitioners were appointed by following due process of law
and their appointments were approved by the competent
authorities. The petitioners are claiming their 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 their initial appointments.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the employees
3 wp 5738.17
serving in private aided Ashram Schools are discriminated, and
have been denied benefits whereas, the benefits are made
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 the Principal Seat of
the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2358/2013 and other
companion matters decided on 21st September, 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
4 wp 5738.17
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 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,
referred to above, the petition deserves to be allowed and the
same is accordingly allowed.
7. The respondents are directed to examine the cases of the
petitioners for deciding whether they 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 petitioners are entitled to claim benefits under the
5 wp 5738.17
ACPS and they satisfy the eligibility criteria, the respondents
shall extend the benefits to the petitioners. The respondents
shall scrutinize the cases of the petitioners within a period of six
months and shall extend him the benefits to them as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of four
months from such scrutiny.
8. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/April 17
