Allowed

Santosh Kishanrao Chavan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Aug 2018WP/2776/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions filed by private aided school employees seeking ACPS benefits. Relying on previous judgments, the court directed the respondents to scrutinize the petitioners' cases within six months and extend benefits within four months if criteria are met.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed; Respondents directed to examine cases within six months and extend ACPS benefits within four months if eligible.

Santosh Kishanrao Chavan and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 2812.18+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2812 OF 2018

¶4

Chandrakant Eknath Bansode
and another

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others.. Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 2776 OF 2018

¶10

Santosh Kishanrao Chavan
and others

¶11

.. Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Maharashtra and others.. Respondents

¶14

Shri Satish B. Parnere, Advocate for the
Petitioners.

¶15

Shri K. N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 in W.P. No. 2812/2018.

¶16

Shri N. T. Bhagat, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 in W.P. No. 2776/2018.

¶17

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - served.

¶18

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶19

DATE: 7 th August, 2018

¶20

PER COURT :

¶21

1.The petitioners claim to be Group - 'C' and

¶22

Group - 'D' employees of private aided Ashram

¶23

Schools. The petitioners seek ACPS benefit.

¶24

2 wp 2812.18+

¶25

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioners and the learned A.G.Ps. for the
respondents.

¶27

3.The issue involved in the present petition is
no longer res integra in view of the judgment of
this court in Writ Petition NO. 5904 of 2017 dated
02.05.2017 and such other matters and also the
judgment at the Principal Seat at Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 2358 of 2013 dated 21st September,
2013.

¶28

4. In view of the decision rendered by the

¶29

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

¶30

5.The respondents are directed to examine the
cases of the petitioners for deciding whether they
satisfy the criteria laid down for claiming
benefits under the ACPS to the private aided
Government schools under the Government Resolution
dated 30th April 1998, as modified from time to

¶31

3 wp 2812.18+

¶32

time, and if it is found that the petitioners are
entitled to claim benefits under the ACPS and they
satisfy the eligibility criteria, the respondents
shall extend the benefits to the petitioners. The
respondents shall scrutinize the cases of the
petitioners within a period of six months and
shall extend him the benefits to them as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a

¶33

period of four months from such scrutiny.

¶34

6.Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

¶35

No costs.

¶36

[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶37

marathe

Santosh Kishanrao Chavan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kishanrao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Narayan Lobhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashok Bajirao Girwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jyoti Kishor Pardeshi Vs Nandkumar and Others

Anjali Prataprao Ghare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalidas Shivajirao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajit Mahadeo Ghodeswar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others