Disposed

Sulochana Anantkumar Chavhan and Others v. the State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Social Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2023WP/379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, non-teaching staff of a private Ashram School sought benefits under a Government Resolution. The High Court directed the State to scrutinize individual eligibility within six months and extend benefits to those who qualify.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine individual petitioner cases within six months and extend benefits to eligible ones preferably within four months.

Sulochana Anantkumar Chavhan and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

Judgment

WP 379-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2023

¶6

Sulochana Anantkumar Chavhan, aged about 41 years, Occ. Service as Junior Clerk, C/o Shri Vasantrao Naik Secondary Ashram School Fulumari, Tah. Manora, District – Washim.

¶7

Mahendragiri Shatrughan Manwar, aged about 42 years, Occ. Service as Cook, C/o Shri Vasantrao Naik Secondary Ashram School Fulumari, Tah. Manora, District – Washim.

¶8

Bhimrao Anandrao Kharode, aged about 47 years, Occ. Service as Lab Assistant, C/o Shri Vasantrao Naik Secondary Ashram School Fulumari, Tah. Manora, District – Washim.

¶9

PETITIONERS

¶10

.....VERSUS..…

¶11

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶12

The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati Division, Amravati.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner Social Welfare, Washim, District – Washim.

¶14

R ESPONDENTS

¶15

Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents/ State.

¶16

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J J . D ATE : 16 th JANUARY, 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶17

RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

¶18

Counsel for the parties.

¶19

WP 379-2023 2 Judgment

¶20

The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for the respondents.

¶21

Each petitioner claims to be working as non-teaching staff in private Ashram Schools in the District of Washim. The petitioners seek benefit of the Government Resolution dated 30/04/1998 as modified from time to time.

¶22

It is seen that the issues raised in the Writ Petition have been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2358/2013 (Kiran Namdeo Shinde and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr. Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.) decided on 21/09/2013 with other connected Writ Petitions.

¶23

In view of aforesaid, for the reasons stated in that judgment, the following order is passed :

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The respondents are directed to examine the cases of each of the individual petitioner 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 30/04/1998 as modified from time to time and if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to claim benefits under the scheme and they

¶26

WP 379-2023 3 Judgment

¶27

satisfy the eligibility criteria, the respondents shall extend the benefits to the petitioners. The respondents shall scrutinize the cases of individual petitioners within a period of six months and extend the benefits to such of the petitioners, who are found eligible as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from such scrutiny.

¶28

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶29

( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. ) ( A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. )

¶30

SUMIT

¶31

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:17.01.2023 10:42

Sulochana Anantkumar Chavhan and Others v. the State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Social Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana Anantkumar Chavhan and Others v. the State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Social Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

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

Divyani W/O Swapnil Saware and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Anr.

Mahesh S/O Vinayakrao Chendke and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Vivek Parashram Pawar and 5 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Buldhana City Dist.Buldhana and Another

Gajanan Wasudeo Tidke Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School and Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Vilas S/O Laxman Koram Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Deptt., Mumbai and Others

The Maharashtra State Bharat Scouts and Guides, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary Vs Kiran Chitaman Lahane and Others