Allowed

Dadarao Dattarao Sangale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Dec 2016WP/6563/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking Assured Career Progress Scheme benefits for 12 years of service were denied by respondents who claimed the scheme did not apply to Ashram Schools. The bench followed prior judgments holding such denial discriminatory and directed respondents to scrutinize cases and grant benefits to eligible petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine petitioners' cases for ACPS eligibility and extend benefits to those qualifying within four months of scrutiny.

Dadarao Dattarao Sangale and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 6563 OF 2016

¶3

1. Dadarao s/o Dattarao Sangale, Age : 50 years, Occu. Service, R/o Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath), District Hingoli

¶4

2. Manik s/o Gangadhar Gadhave, Age : 44 years, Occu. Service, R/o Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath), District Hingoli

¶5

3. Gangadhar s/o Sambhaji Bansode, Age : 45 years, Occu. Service, R/o Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath), District Hingoli

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶9

2. The District Social Welfare Officer, Hingoli

¶10

3. Shivneri Prathamik Ashram School, Jawla Bazar, through Principal at Jawla Bazar, Tq. Aundha (Nagnath), District Hingoli

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr. Satish B. Parnere, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S.B. Joshi, A.G.P. for the respondent/State

¶13

CORAM :R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 22nd December, 2016

¶15

¶16

wp6563-2016

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J.) :

¶18

Heard.

¶19

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶20

the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶21

3.The petitioners are praying for directions to

¶22

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.

¶23

4.The respondents authorities have refused to
scrutinise their proposals, contending that the scheme

¶24

does not apply to the employees of Ashram Schools. The
reason recorded by the respondents for their refusal to

¶25

scrutinise 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

¶26

State of Maharashtra) decided on 2.12.2013. In para

¶27

¶28

wp6563-2016

¶29

No.5 of the Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court

¶30

has observed thus:-

¶31

“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:-

¶32

“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

¶33

wp6563-2016

¶34

¶35

similarly placed employees discharging similar duties is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.”

¶38

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

¶39

6.The respondents are directed to examine cases
of each of the individual petitioners for deciding,
whether they satisfy the criteria laid down for claiming
benefits under ACPS, applicable to the private aided

¶40

wp6563-2016

¶41

¶42

schools under the Government Resolution dated 30.4.1998

¶43

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. The respondents shall scrutinise the cases
of each petitioner 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.

¶44

7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶45

8. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

[ SANGITRAO S. PATIL ] [R.M. BORDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

npj/wp6563-2016

Dadarao Dattarao Sangale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadarao Dattarao Sangale 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

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhu Dattatraya Totewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nanda Namdev Tidake and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramdas Sakharam Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Divyani Vijay Nikumbhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Popat Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another