Allowed

Vaman Namdeo Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Mar 2016WP/3200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, non-teaching staff in an aided Ashram School, sought inclusion in the Assured Career Progress Scheme (ACPS). Rejecting the view that the scheme did not apply to Ashram School staff, the Court held this discriminatory. It allowed the petition, directing authorities to scrutinize eligibility and grant benefits expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine individual cases, decide eligibility under GR dated 30.4.1998, and extend ACPS benefits to eligible petitioners within six months.

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

¶1

wp 3200.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3200 OF 2016

¶5

1	Vaman S/o Namdeo Jadhav
	age: 44 years, occu: servic, as Superintendent, R/o C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School Saknur, Post Baharali Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
2	Kantiram S/o Rupla Chavan, age: 54 years, occu: service, as Kamati, R/o C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School Saknur, Post Baharali Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
3	Kamlbai W/o Vekanti Pawar, age: 54 years, occu: service, as Cook R/o C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School Saknur, Post Baharali Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
4	Sonyabai w/o Baliram Rathod, age: 53 years, occu: service, as Cook R/o C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School Saknur, Post Baharali Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded
5	Devidas S/o Ramrao Rathod, age: 34 years, oucc: service, as Helper R/o C/o Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School Saknur, Post Baharali Tq. Mukhed, District. Nanded Petitioners
	Versus
1	The State of Maharashtra, through: Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
	Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶6

{2} wp 3200.16.odt

¶7

2 The Director, V.J.N.T., OBC & SBC Special Assistant Department, Maharashtra State Pune

¶8

3 The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Latur Division, Latur.

¶9

4 The Assistant Commissioner, Social welfare Department, Nanded

¶10

5 Shri Jemla Naik Primary (deleted) Ashram School, Saknur, Post Baharali Tq. Mukhed, District: Nanded Through : Head Master Respondents

¶11

Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil advocate for the petitioners Mrs.A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 4

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, & P.R. BORA, JJ Date : 17th MARCH, 2016.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶15

1 Heard.

¶16

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final decision, at admission stage.

¶17

3 Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to delete name of respondent No.5. Leave granted. Name of respondent No.5 stands deleted.

¶18

{3} wp 3200.16.odt

¶19

4 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.

¶20

5 The respondent authorities have refused to scrutinize 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 scrutinize 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) decided on 2.12.2013. In para No.5 of the Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:-

¶21

“ 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:-

¶22

wp 3200.16.odt

¶23

{4}

¶24

“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 non-teaching staff of the aided Secondary Schools in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ category gets the benefits 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.

¶25

18 Only on the basis of purported ground of financial cruch, 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.

¶26

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. ” ”

¶27

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

¶28

{5} wp 3200.16.odt

¶29

7 The respondents are directed to examine cases of each of the individual petitioners, for deciding whether they have satisfied 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 time to time and if it is found that, the petitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria, the respondents shall extend the benefits to the petitioners. Respondents shall scrutinize the cases of individuals, within a period of six months from today and extend the benefits to such of eligible petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of scrutiny of the proposals.

¶30

8 Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶31

9 Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶33

vbd

Vaman Namdeo Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaman Namdeo 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

Pimplner Education Society Pimpalner, Dhule and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Pritranjan Ramrao Sarkate and Others Vs the Director General National Institute Electronics and Information Technology and Others

Sunanda Ashok Kulthe Vs the District Deputy Registrar and Others

Chandrakant Shivlal Gavade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raju Ravji Gavit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramdas Murlidhar Shendkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others