Allowed

Vyankat Ramdas Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Apr 2016WP/2477/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, employees of private aided Ashram Schools claimed entitlement to the Assured Career Progress Scheme (ACPS) benefits denied to similar staff in other aided schools. The court, relying on a Division Bench judgment, held that the denial was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights. The petition was allowed, directing the respondents to examine individual cases and extend

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Respondents directed to examine individual petitioner cases and extend ACPS benefits to eligible petitioners within six months, preferably within four months of scrutiny.

Vyankat Ramdas Jadhav and Others Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

 1 42-wp2477-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2477 OF 2016

¶4

Vyankati s/o. Ramdas Jadhav
and ors.

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
and ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr.V.B.Jadhav, advocate for petitioners

¶10

Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 12, 2016

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1. Heard.

¶14

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶15

the consent of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing at admission stage.

¶16

3. The petitioners are the employees of private

¶17

aided Ashram Schools. The petitioners are claiming

¶18

 2 42-wp2477-16.odt

¶19

their entitlement to higher pay scale under Assured

¶20

Career Progress Scheme (for short 'the ACPS') on
completion of 12 years of qualifying service from
the respective dates of their initial appointments.

¶21

4.It is the contention of the petitioners that
the employees serving in private aided Ashram
Schools are discriminated and have been denied
benefits under the ACPS, whereas the said benefits
are made available to the Ashram Schools conducted
by the Social Welfare Department, and other private
aided schools conducted by other Departments.

¶22

5. The issue raised in the petition is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench delivered at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2358/2013 and other companion matters decided on 21^st September, 2013. The Division Bench in paragraph nos. 17 to 19 of the order has observed thus:-

¶23

 3 42-wp2477-16.odt

¶24

"17.The Assured Career Progress Scheme is a

¶25

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.

¶26

18.Only on the basis of purported ground of
financial crunch, we fail to understand the

¶27

 4 42-wp2477-16.odt

¶28

approach of the State Government of

¶29

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.

¶30

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."

¶31

6.In view of the decision rendered by the
Division Bench, referred to above, the present
petition deserves to be allowed, and the same is
accordingly allowed.

¶32

7.The respondents are directed to examine the
case of each individual petitioner for deciding
whether, they satisfy the criteria laid down for

¶33

 5 42-wp2477-16.odt

¶34

claiming benefits under the ACPS to the private
aided 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 ACPS and if they satisfy
the eligibility criteria, the respondents shall
extend the benefits to the petitioners. The
respondents shall scrutinize the case of individual
petitioner 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.

¶35

8.Rule made absolute in the above terms. The

¶36

writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶37

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.]

¶38

[S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶39

kbp

Vyankat Ramdas Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyankat Ramdas Jadhav 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

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

Madhav Laluji Pallewad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Kiran Milind Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Harsha Jitendra Patil Vs Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji High School Sanstha and Others

The Maharashtra Rajya Prathmik Shikshak Samiti Thr Its Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another