Arvind Sahebrao Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2025WP/8248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACP Scheme; Assured Career Progression Scheme; twelve years qualifying service; Government Resolutions dated 02.09.1989, 03.10.2006, 04.08.2008; Maharashtra government employees; petition treated as representation; decision within ten weeks; communication within two weeks; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No.8248 of 2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:14936-DB; disposed without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to treat the petition as a representation, decide all issues raised therein in accordance with law within ten weeks from receipt of the order, and communicate the decision to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter. ¶¶16

Arvind Sahebrao Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme immediately after completion of twelve years of qualifying service in terms of the Government Resolutions dated 2nd September, 1989, 3rd October, 2006 and 4th August, 2008.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to treat the present petition as a representation and decide all the issues raised in the petition in accordance with law within ten weeks from receipt of the order.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The decision taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is to be communicated to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertook to produce the copy of the petition with annexures and the copy of the order passed today before respondent Nos.2 and 3 within two weeks.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Division Bench: Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ.; order dated 22/12/2025) in Writ Petition No.8248 of 2025 (Arivind Sahebrao Jadhav and ors. v. State of Maharashtra and ors.): The petitioners sought extension of the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme immediately after completion of twelve years of qualifying service in terms of Government Resolutions dated 2nd September, 1989, 3rd October, 2006 and 4th August, 2008, but the issue remained undecided by the respondent-Authorities. Without deciding the merits, the Division Bench directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide all issues raised therein in accordance with law within ten weeks from receipt of the order, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter. Counsel for the petitioners undertook to furnish the petition with annexures and a copy of the order to respondent Nos.2 and 3 within two weeks. With these directions, the petition was disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:14936-DB

¶2

1 157) wp. 8248-25

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8248 OF 2025

¶5

Arivind Sahebrao Jadhav and ors.

¶6

..vs..

¶7

State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶8

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

- - - - Shri S.R. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner/s thr. V.C.. Shri P.P. Pendke, AGP for respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 22/12/2025.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

In this petition, a prayer is made to extend the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in favour of the petitioners immediately after completion of twelve years of qualifying service in terms of the Government Resolutions dated 2^nd September, 1989, 3^rd October, 2006 and 4^th August, 2008. Be that as it may, the aforesaid issue is still not decided by the respondent-Authorities.

¶13

Accordingly, we direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to treat the present petition as representation and decide all the issues raised in this petition in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The decision taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to produce the copy of the petition along with the annexures thereto and the copy of the order passed today before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 within two weeks from today.

¶15

2 157) wp. 8248-25

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR , J.)

¶18

BTK

Arvind Sahebrao Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Sahebrao Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murlidhar Bansilal Kumeriya Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Atmaram S/O Natthu Dhok Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

M/S R.B. Contractors, Thr. Rameshraoji S/O Ramraoji Girolkar Vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Public Works Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Purushottam S/O Balaji Kumre Vs the General Administration Dept., Thr. Its Secretary, Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Kshetra Dhareshwar Charitable Trust, Soygaon (Pangarkhed) Thr. Secretary, Divakar S. Darade Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Dinesh S/O Murlidhar More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and Others