Bombay High Court
Dashrath Ramaji Navghare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 3 January, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1
wp1059.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1059/2020
1. Dashrath Ramaji Navghare,
aged 49 Yrs., Occu. Kamathi,
R/o C/o Shri Madaneshwar
Prathamic Va Madhyamic Aadiwasi
Ashram Shala, Madani, Tal. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Kailash Vithobaji Madavi,
aged 55 Yrs., Occu. Cook,
R/o C/o Shri Madaneshwar
Prathamic Va Madhyamic Aadiwasi
Ashram Shala, Madani, Tal. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3. Prabhakar Tukaramji Hote,
aged 54 Yrs., Occu. Cook,
R/o C/o Shri Madaneshwar
Prathamic Va Madhyamic Aadiwasi
Ashram Shala, Madani, Tal. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
4. Sukhdev Pundalikrao Uike,
aged 39 Yrs., Occu. Kamathi,
R/o C/o Shri Madaneshwar
Prathamic Va Madhyamic Aadiwasi
Ashram Shala, Madani, Tal. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
5. Gajanan Shamraoji Rajurkar,
aged 54 Yrs., Occ. Asstt. Cook.
6. Maroti Bhaurao Chandekar,
Aged 49 Yrs., Occ. Cook.
Nos.5 and 6 both are R/o C/o
Shri Madaneshwar
Prathamic Va Madhyamic Aadiwasi
2
wp1059.2020.odt
Ashram Shala, Madani, Tal. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
7. Uttam Shriram Waghmare,
aged 42 Yrs., Occ. Helper,
R/o C/o Vasantrao Naik Madhyamic
Ashram School, Vasant Nagar,
Tal. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal. ..Petitioners.
..Vs..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary Social
Welfare Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Commissioner / Director,
Social Welfare Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department, Amravati
Division, Amravati (Sic Nagpur).
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Social
Welfare Officer, Yavatmal, Tq. and
Dist. Yavatmal. ..Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATED :- 3.1.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent.
wp1059.2020.odt
2. The petitioners are the non-teaching staff members of Private
Aided Ashram Schools who are denied the benefits of Assured
Career Progression Scheme (for short "ACPS") after completion of 12
years of their qualifying service. According to the petitioners, they are
entitled to receive such benefits on the similar lines as the
non-teaching staff of the Ashram Schools run by the State and their
such entitlement has been found to be valid by the view taken by
Coordinate Bench at Mumbai in the judgment rendered on 21 st
September, 2013 in Writ Petition No.2358/2013 along with other
connected matters.
3. We have gone through the said judgment dated 21 st September,
2013 rendered in Writ Petition No.2358/2013 and other matters at
Mumbai and we are of the opinion that the issue involved in this
petition is squarely covered by the view taken therein. The Division
Bench in the said case has found that when Assured Career
Progression Scheme is a welfare scheme, which is brought to remove
the stagnation amongst Group "C" and Group "D" employees, the
justification that if the non-teaching staff of Private Aided Ashram
Schools are given the benefits of ACPS it would result in increase in
financial burden would bear no reasonable nexus with the object
sought to be achieved by ACPS. It is with such reasoning that
wp1059.2020.odt
Coordinate Bench at Mumbai has found that denial of benefit of ACPS
to non-teaching staff of Private Aided Schools amounts to
discrimination, hit by the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India (see paragraphs 17, 18 and 19).
4. This view has been followed in another decision rendered on
2nd December, 2013 in Writ Petition No.7256/2011 by Division Bench
at Aurangabad. It was then followed by a judgment delivered on 21 st
August, 2019 in Writ Petition No.4049/2018 by this Bench of which
one of us was a part.
5. In view of the above, we find that the issue involved in this
petition being identical in the aforestated petitions, this petition
deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly.
6. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to receive the
benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme which may be provided
to the petitioners, if it's conditions are satisfied.
7. We further direct that the case of each of the petitioners shall be
scrutinized and eligibility of each of the petitioners to receive the said
wp1059.2020.odt
benefits would be determined within a period of six months. We
further direct that the petitioners who are found to be eligible for the
benefits flowing from the Assured Career Progression Scheme, shall be
paid the same within a period of two months from the date on which
they are found to be eligible.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO
TAMBASKAR
Private Secretary
Signing Date:03.01.2022 16:37
Tambaskar.
