Bombay High Court
Mr. Prakash S/O Vasantrao Rahate ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 21 March, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
934.wp.1480.21.jud 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1480 OF 2021
Petitioners : 1. Mr. Prakash s/o Vasantrao Rahate,
Aged about 55 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o 143, Vasant Vihar, 1st Floor, Amar Jyoti Nagar,
Nara Road, Jaripatka, Nagpur - 14.
2. Sunil s/o Ramrao Gotmare,
Aged about 56 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Charan Complex, 1st Floor, Bhawabhoti
Rangmandir, Punatoli, Gondia.
3. Pradeep s/o Padmakar Chawade,
Aged about 58 Years, Occupation : Retired,
R/o A-201, Shivani Residency, Gawande Layout,
Near Ayappa Mandir, Suyog Nagar,
Nagpur - 440027.
4. Sunil s/o Shiram Gaikwad,
Aged about 55 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Charan Complex, 1st Floor, Bhawabhoti
Rangmandir, Punatoli, Gondia.
5. Prashant s/o Janardhan Mool,
Aged about 55 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o D.K. Patil Complex, Nalwadi, Wardha.
6. Pradip s/o Sudhakarrao Barahate,
Aged about 52 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Krishna Tower, Flat No.302, ,Gurudwara
Road, Tukum, Chandrapur.
7. Milind s/o Mahadhavrao Bandiwar,
Aged about 54 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Raghatate Layout, Akashwani Road,
Behind District Stadium, Chandrapur.
8. Pradeep s/o Bhimrao Wankhede,
Aged about 54 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o 103, Krishna Apartment, Income Tax Colony,
Gadge Nagar, Near Hingna Naka, Hingna Road,
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2023 03:21:16 :::
934.wp.1480.21.jud 2/5
Nagpur - 440016.
9. Sanjay s/o Madhaorao Meshram,
Aged about 53 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Bhimrao Bhagat Sister Colony,
Behind Little Flower Convent, Chandrapur.
10. Avinash s/o Vitthalrao Palthe,
Aged about 42 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o Suresh Sonkusre, House No.668,
Manoharbhai Ward, Bank Colony, Gondia
11. Prabodh s/o Prem Dandekar,
Aged about 44 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o D.K. Patil Complex, Nalwadi, Wardha.
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralay, Mumbai-32.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department, Mantralay, Mumbai-32.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Water Supply and Sanitation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Irrigation & Resources,
Mantralay, Mumbai-32.
5. Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
Through its Member Secretary,
Office at 4th Floor, Express Tower, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021
6. Chief Engineer,
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur Office at Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2023 03:21:16 :::
934.wp.1480.21.jud 3/5
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. D.M. Kakani, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : 21st MARCH, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent
of learned Counsel for the parties.
02] The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the non-grant of
benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme ('ACPS' for short) on
account of the upgradation to the post of Sectional Engineer (Group-B). The
petitioners by relying upon the Government Resolutions dated 08/06/1995,
20/07/2001 and 01/04/2010 contend that on mere upgradation to the post of
Sectional Engineer, they cannot be deprived of the benefits admissible under
the ACPS. Further relying upon the judgments of the Division Bench in Civil
Writ Petition No.8009 of 2021 (Suhas Prabhakarrao Dharasurkar and others
vs. State of Maharashtra and others) as well as Writ Petition No.2330 of 2021
(Upendra Madhavrao Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and others) , decided
at Aurangabad Bench of this Court, it is submitted that this Court has held
that upgradation granted to the post of Sectional Engineer is required to be
934.wp.1480.21.jud 4/5
ignored while considering the grant of benefits of financial upgradation under
the ACPS. In the subsequent decision, the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
was the employer as in the present case. It is thus submitted that by following
the aforesaid decisions, similar benefits be granted to the petitioners.
03] The learned Counsel for the respondents do not dispute the
adjudication of the aforesaid matters. The learned Counsel for the
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran submits that on 14/02/202 , a proposal has
been sent to the State Government with regard to steps to be taken in the light
of the judgment of this Court delivered at the Aurangabad Bench. Since the
said proposal is pending, it is urged that the decision on the same be awaited.
04] We find that similar issue having been decided against the
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran in the case of Upendra Madhavrao Kulkarni
(supra), similar directions can be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, for
the reasons assigned in the decision in Suhas Prabhakarrao Dharasurkar
(supra) as well as Upendra Madhavrao Kulkarni (supra), the following order
is passed :
05] The writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents not to take
into consideration the upgradation granted on the post of Sectional Engineer
934.wp.1480.21.jud 5/5
while considering the entitlement of the petitioners for grant of financial
upgradation under the ACPS. The respondents shall examine the case of each
petitioner on merits and determine the eligibility of each petitioner to such
entitlement. The entire exercise be carried out within a period of four months
from today. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
*sandesh
