Allowed

Chanbasweshwar Manmath Sarafe Swami v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Apr 2014WP/3873/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees of private aided Ashram Schools claimed entitlement to higher pay scales under the Assured Career Progress Scheme. The court allowed the petitions, holding that denying similar benefits to Ashram School employees while granting them to other private aided school employees was discriminatory, violating fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed. Respondents directed to examine eligibility of individual petitioners under the ACPS and extend benefits within a specified period.

Chanbasweshwar Manmath Sarafe Swami Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp3861.14

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3861 OF 2014

¶5

Vasanta s/o Ashruji Bhusari and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3870 OF 2014 Mangala Ramesh Nikam and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3873 OF 2014 Chanbasweshwar Manmath Sarafe Swami ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3874 OF 2014 Bansi Dnyanoba Kale and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

¶6

wp3861.14

¶7

-2-

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3877 OF 2014

¶9

Datta Sitaram Rathod and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, advocate for the petitioners Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the respondents 1 to 4 in all matters

¶11

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶12

DATED: 25TH APRIL, 2014

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. The petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶16

The petitioners are the employees of aided private Ashram Schools, which are made respondents in the respective writ petitions. The petitioners in this group of petitions are claiming their entitlement to higher pay scale under Assured Career Progress Scheme (for short

¶17

`the ACPS") on completion of 12 years of qualifying service from the

¶18

wp3861.14

¶19

-3-

¶20

date of their initial appointment.

¶21

It is the contention of the petitioners that the employees 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.

¶22

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:-

¶23

"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

¶24

wp3861.14 -4-

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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."

¶28

In view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench, as referred to above, the petitions deserve to be allowed, and the same are accordingly allowed.

¶29

The respondents in this group of petitions are directed to examine the cases of each of the individual petitioner for deciding whether they satisfy the criteria laid down for claiming benefits under

¶30

wp3861.14

¶31

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 Scheme, and they satisfy the eligibility criteria, the respondents shall extend the benefits to the petitioners in these petitions. The respondents shall scrutinize the cases of individual petitioners within a period of six months, and extend the benefits to such of the petitioners who are found eligible, as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of four months from such scrutiny.

¶32

Rule made absolute in above terms. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

rlj/

Chanbasweshwar Manmath Sarafe Swami v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanbasweshwar Manmath Sarafe Swami v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Trimbakrao Deshpande Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Hemant Raghunath Mahale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Renuka Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Beed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hemant Jaywantrao Vaidyaand Anr. Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through Divnl Officer Latur and Anr.

Kondbarao Maruti Deshmukhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Gyanoba Karbhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others