Allowed

Madhav Laluji Pallewad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Apr 2016WP/2382/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Aurangabad allowed three writ petitions seeking entitlement to Assured Career Progress Scheme (ACPS) benefits for non-teaching employees of private aided Ashram Schools. Relying on a Division Bench precedent, the court held that denying these benefits to equally qualified employees in private Ashram schools while granting them to other aided school employees constit

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; respondents directed to scrutinize claimants and extend ACPS benefits within six months.

Madhav Laluji Pallewad and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP NO.2386 OF 2016 +

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 2016

¶4

VITHAL S/O PUNAJI RATHOD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 12464 OF 2015

¶7

SANJEEV S/O NIVRUTTIRAO ALAPURE AND OTHERS.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 2382 OF 2016

¶11

MADHAV S/O LALUJI PALLEWAD AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶13

...

¶14

Mr. N.P. Patil, Jamalpurkar, Advocate, for the
petitioners.

¶15

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondent/State.

¶16

...

¶17

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Dated: April 11, 2016

¶18

***

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

1. Heard.

¶21

2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard

¶22

forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the

¶23

petitions are taken up for final disposal at
admission stage.

¶24

3. The petitioners are the employees of

¶25

2 WP NO.2386 OF 2016 +

¶26

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
`the ACPS") on completion of 12 years' of

¶27

qualifying service from the date of their initial
appointments.

¶28

4. It is the contention of the petitioners

¶29

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.

¶30

5. The issue raised in these petitions is

¶31

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 (Shri

¶32

Kiran Namdeo Shinde and others V/s The State of

¶33

Maharashtra and others), decided on 21st
September, 2013. The Division Bench in paragraph

¶34

3 WP NO.2386 OF 2016 +

¶35

nos. 17 to 19 of the order has observed thus:-

¶36

"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 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.

¶37

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

¶38

4 WP NO.2386 OF 2016 +

¶39

19. 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."

¶40

6. 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.

¶41

7. The respondents are directed to examine
the cases of the petitioners for deciding whether
they satisfy the criteria laid down for claiming
benefits under the ACPS to the private aided
GovernmentschoolsundertheGovernment

¶42

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

¶43

the Scheme, and they satisfy the eligibility
criteria, the respondents shall extend the
benefits to the petitioners. The respondents
shall scrutinize the cases of the petitioners

¶44

within a period of six months, and extend them
the benefits as expeditiously as possible, and

¶45

5 WP NO.2386 OF 2016 +

¶46

preferably within a period of four months from
such scrutiny.

¶47

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

¶48

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S.SHINDE)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶49

...

¶50

sga

Madhav Laluji Pallewad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Laluji Pallewad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasant Keshavrao Akolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Amrutrao Hambarde Vs the Honble Presiding Officer School Tribunal Latur and Others

Manoj Chhagan Kambale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Marathwada Sarvoday Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Jalna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Punaji Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Narayan Gonyal Vs the General Manager the Second Appellate Authority Mumbai and Others