Allowed

Ram Hemla Chavan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jun 2016WP/3354/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning entitlement to higher pay scale under Assured Career Progress Scheme for employees of private aided Ashram Schools. Court allowed petition based on precedent establishing equality rights.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine petitioner cases and extend Assured Career Progress Scheme benefits to eligible petitioners within six months.

Ram Hemla Chavan and Others Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

 1 48-WP-3354 AND 841.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3354 OF 2016

¶4

Ram Hemla Chavan,
Age 48 years, Occ. Service as
Superintendent, r/o. Primary
Ashram School, Krushnawadi,
Tq. Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded
and 18 others..Petitioners

¶5

versus
The State of Maharashtra
and ors...Respondents
--

¶6

Mr.A.V.Indrale Patil, Advocate for petitioners

¶7

Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 –
State

¶8

Mr.S.P.Dhobale, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 7

¶9

AND

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.841 OF 2016

¶11

Bhaurao Wajir Aade,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service
as Junior Clerk, r/o.
c/o. Madhyamik
Ashram School, Mudkhed,
Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded
and 11 others..Petitioners

¶12

versus

¶13

The State of Maharashtra
and ors.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

 2 48-WP-3354 AND 841.odt

¶16

Mr.A.V.Indrale Patil, Advocate for petitioners

¶17

Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 –
State

¶18

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 14, 2016

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

Heard.

¶21

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶22

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

¶23

3.The petitioners are the employees of private

¶24

aided Ashram Schools. The petitioners are claiming
their entitlement to higher pay scale under Assured
Career Progress Scheme (for short 'the ACPS') on
completion of 12 years of qualifying service from
the respective dates of their initial appointments.

¶25

 3 48-WP-3354 AND 841.odt

¶26

4.It is the contention of the petitioners that

¶27

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.

¶28

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:-

¶29

"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"

¶30

 4 48-WP-3354 AND 841.odt

¶31

and `D" employees. The ACPS enables the

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

 5 48-WP-3354 AND 841.odt

¶35

the Schools were functioning under the control

¶36

of only one department.

¶37

19.In our view the denial of benefit of ACPS

¶38

amounts to discrimination, which is hit by the
rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India."

¶39

6.In view of the decision rendered by the

¶40

Division Bench, referred to above, the present
petition deserves to be allowed, and the same is
accordingly allowed.

¶41

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

¶42

 6 48-WP-3354 AND 841.odt

¶43

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 six months from such
scrutiny.

¶44

8.Rule made absolute in the above terms. The

¶45

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶46

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶47

kbp

Ram Hemla Chavan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Hemla Chavan 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

Laxmam Mhasu Darade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakhu Maruti Bite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankarsingh Ganeshsingh Pardeshi Vs Chairperson and Managing Director Central Bank of India and Ors.

Swami Durganand Shaikshanik Va Sanskrutik Sanstha, Jalgaon through Its President Nanabhau P Mahajan Vs Nandkumar and Another

Gulab Mehatab Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Priti Sanjay Wankhede and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others