Bombay High Court
Pramod Dattatraya Patil And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 December, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 14311.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14311 OF 2017
1. Pramod Dattatraya Patil,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Service,
2. Suresh Dullabh Patil,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Service,
3. Ramesh Ananda Bhil,
Age: 49 Years, Occu.: Service,
4. Sakharam Laxman Chavan,
Age: 45 Years, Occ.: Service,
5. Sudam Sahadeo Nerkar,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Service,
6. Bebibai Ukha Khairnar,
Age: 53 Years, Occu.: Service,
7. Deopuri Shivpuri Bawa,
Age: 37 Years, Occu.: Service,
All R/o. Nimzari -Waghadi, Shirpur,
Tq.: Shirpur, Dist.: Dhule .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department
Nashik Division, Nashik,
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:20:39 :::
2 wp 14311.17
Old Mumbai-Agra Road,
Gadkari Chowk, Nashik
3. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development
Department, Dhule, Tq. An Dist.: Dhule .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14979 OF 2017
1. Vijay Motiram Halor,
Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Service,
2. Meera Sukhdev Pardeshi,
Age: 48 Years, Occu.: Service,
3. Smt. Sunanda Namdev Bagul,
Age: 44 Years, Occu.: Service,
4. Smt. Saraswati Goma Jagtap,
Age: 33 Years, Occu.: Service,
5. Dharmraj Namdev Bagul,
Age: 33 Years, Occu.: Service,
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are R/o. Anudanit
Prarthamik Ashram School,
Udane, Tq. and Dist.: Dhule.
6. Surekha Bhaidas More,
Age: 40 Years, Occu.: Service,
7. Smt. Hirabaio Nirantar Bhamare,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Service,
8. Suresh Waru Ahire,
Age: 43 Years, Occu.: Service,
9. Kalidas Furna Walavi,
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:20:39 :::
3 wp 14311.17
Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Service,
10. Lalesh Madhukar Sonawane,
Age: 36 Years, Occu.: Service,
Petitioner Nos. 6 to 10 R/o. At post
Anudanit Prarthamik Ashram School Mhasdi,
Tq.: Sakri, Dist.: Dhule
11. Sau. Sangita Jagannath Dhangar,
Age: 45 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. At Varsus, Post Runmali, Tq. : Sakri,
Dist.: Dhule
12. Dilip Popat Patil,
Age: 40 Years, Occu.: Service,
13. Smt. Bhatabai Daulta Ahire,
Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Service,
14. Smt. Alka Vasant Sonawane,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Service,
15. Bhaskar Diwangir Bawa,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Service,
16. Bhatu Yashwant Patil,
Age: 42 Years, Occu.: Service,
17. Smt. Sarla Bapu Bhil,
Age: 33 Years, Occu.: Service,
Petitioner Nos. 12 to 17 are R/o. Anudanit
Prarthamik Ashram School, Nandare,
Tq.: and Dist.: Dhule .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:20:39 :::
4 wp 14311.17
Through Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department
Nashik Division, Nashik
Old Mumbai-Agra Road,
Gadkari Chowk, Nashik
3. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development
Department, Dhule, Tq. and Dist.: Dhule.. Respondents
Shri A. D. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri C. S. Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondent / State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
DATE : 20 th December, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: S. V. Gangapurwala, J.):
1. Heard.
2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is
taken up for final hearing 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
5 wp 14311.17
appointments and the Government Resolution dated 30.4.1998
entitles them to receive such benefits.
4. The respondents authorities have refused to
scrutinise 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 scrutinise 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:-
"17. The Assured Career Progress
6 wp 14311.17
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
the non-teaching staff of aided Ashram
7 wp 14311.17
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 petitions deserves to be allowed
and the same are 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. The respondents shall scrutinise 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
8 wp 14311.17
possible and preferably, within a period of four months from the
date of scrutiny of the proposals.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
8. Writ petitions stand disposed of.
[V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe/Dec.17
