Allowed

Gulab Mehatab Shaikh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jun 2016WP/3553/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, employed in private aided Ashram Schools, sought entitlement to benefits under the Assured Career Progress Scheme (ACPS) after 12 years of service. The High Court allowed the petition relying on a precedent establishing that denying such benefits to similarly placed employees violates constitutional rights against discrimination.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to examine individual petitioner cases and extend ACPS benefits to eligible petitioners within six months.

Gulab Mehatab Shaikh and Others Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

 1 WP-3553-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3553 OF 2016

¶4

Gulab Mehatab Shaikh,
Age 42 years, Occ. Service as
Senior Superintendent,
r/o. Saraswati Devi Primary,
Ashram School, Chincholirao,
Tq. and Dist. Latur
and 11 others..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
and ors...Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.V.Indrale Patil, Advocate for petitioners
Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 –
State
Mr.K.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 7

¶8

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

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard.

¶11

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶12

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

¶13

 2 WP-3553-16.odt

¶14

3.The petitioners are the employees of private
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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

 3 WP-3553-16.odt

¶18

The Division Bench in paragraph nos. 17 to 19 of

¶19

the order has observed thus:-

¶20

"17.The Assured Career Progress Scheme is a

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

the similarly placed employees discharging
similar duties is arbitrary and violative of

¶24

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

 4 WP-3553-16.odt

¶26

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.

¶27

19.In our view the denial of benefit of ACPS

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

7.The respondents are directed to examine the
case of each individual petitioner for deciding

¶31

 5 WP-3553-16.odt

¶32

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
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.

¶33

8.Rule made absolute in the above terms. The

¶34

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

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

¶36

kbp

Gulab Mehatab Shaikh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Mehatab Shaikh 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

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

Ram Hemla Chavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

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