Allowed

Lotan Bhivsen Patil and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Dec 2016WP/1628/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay Bench, Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition wherein school employees sought the Assured Career Progress Scheme (ACPS) benefits. The Court held that denying these benefits to non-teaching staff of aided private Ashram Schools is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the authorities to scrutinize in

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to examine each petitioner's case for ACPS eligibility within six months and extend benefits to eligible petitioners expeditiously.

Lotan Bhivsen Patil and Others Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1628 OF 2016

¶4

1. Lotan s/o. Bhivsen Patil, Age 46 years, Occ. Service,

¶5

2. Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Esak Patel, Age 49 years, Occ. Service,

¶6

3. Anandkumar s/o. Budha Jagdeo, Age 40 yars, Occ. Service,

¶7

4. Dadaji s/o. Tejaram Bagul, Age 38 years, Occ. Service,

¶8

5. Sau. Kamlabai Girdhar Pavra, Age 37 years, Occ. Service,

¶9

 Petitioner No.1 to 5 are
 r/o. Madhyamik Ashram School
 Waghadi, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule

¶10

6. Bhagawan s/o. Damodar Kulkarni, Age 53 years, Occ. Service,

¶11

7. Ambalal s/o. Juma Pavra, Age 50 years, Occ. Service,

¶12

8. Sharad s/o. Ratilal Wagh, Age 45 years, Occ. Service,

¶13

9. Jaivantabai Adhar Dhangar, Age 45 years, Occ. Service,

¶14

10.Chotulal s/o. Dattu Chaudhari, Age 52 years, Occ. Service,

¶15

2 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶16

 Petitioner Nos.6 to 10 are
 r/o. R.C. Patel Anudanit,
 Madhyamik Ashram School,
 Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule

¶17

11.Latabai Premraj Chavan,
 Age 53 years, Occ. Service,
 r/o. Primary Ashram School,
 Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dhule. Dhule

¶18

12.Sau.Bebi Damu Randive,
 Age 40 years, Occ. Service,
 r/o. Primary Ashram School,
 Waghadi, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule

¶19

13.Savitabai Bhivsan Bari,
 Age 52 years, Occ. Service,
 r/o. Primary Ashram School,
 Asali, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule..Petitioners

¶20

Vs.

¶21

1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Secretary,
 Tribal Development Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶22

2. The Additional Commissioner,
 Tribal Development Department,
 Nashik Division, Nashik,
 Old Mumbai – Agra Road,
 Gadkari Chowk, Nashik

¶23

3. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Department, Dhule, Tq. and Dist.Dhule

¶24

3 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶25

4. Madhyamik Ashram School,
 Waghadi, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule,
 Through its Headmaster
5. R.C.Patel Madhyamik Ashram
 School, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule,
 Through its Headmaster
6. Primary Ashram School,
 Tq.Shirpur, Dist. Dhule
 Through its Headmaster
7. Primary Ashram School,
 Waghadi, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule
 Through its Headmaster
8. Primary Ashram School,
 Asali, Tq. Shirpur,
 Dist. Dhule
 Through its Headmaster..Respondents

¶26

Mr.A.D.Pawar, Advocate for petitioners

¶27

Mr.K.D.Mundhe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3

¶28

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND

¶29

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2016

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J.)

¶31

Heard.

¶32

4 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶33

2.Rule. With the consent of the parties,

¶34

petition is taken up for final hearing at admission
stage.

¶35

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
appointments and the Government Resolution dated
30.4.1998 entitles them to receive such benefits.

¶36

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)

¶37

5 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶38

decided on 2.12.2013. In para No.5 of the Judgment,

¶39

the Division Bench of this Court has observed

¶40

thus:-

¶41

“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., 21^st , 2013. The Division Bench in paragraph Nos.17 to 19 of the order has observed thus:-

¶42

“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 enable the eligible employees to be placed in higher pay scale. The eligible nonteaching staff of the aided Secondary Schools in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ category gets the benefits of ACPS. But the

¶43

6 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶44

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.

¶45

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 nonteaching staff of aided private Schools. At one stage both the Schools were functioning under the control of only one department.

¶46

7 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶47

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.”

¶48

5.In view of above, the petition deserves to
be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

8 32-wp1628-16.odt

¶52

months from today and extend the benefits to such

¶53

of eligible petitioners, as expeditiously as
possible and preferably, within a period of four
months from the date of scrutiny of the proposals.

¶54

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶55

8. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶56

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]

¶57

kbp

Lotan Bhivsen Patil and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lotan Bhivsen Patil and Others 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

Vinay Narayan Bhat and Others Vs the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd. through the Managing Director and Others

Taibai Pravin Khavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudam Shahaji Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lotu Devichand Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ahmednagar Zilla Shet Majoor Union, Ahmedngar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunanda Madhukar Vaijwade Vs Suresh Bedmutha