Vitthal Dagadu Chavhan v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
912 WRIT PETITION NO.13234 OF 2022 VITTHAL DAGADU CHAVHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vishal A. Bagal. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. G. Karlekar. ...
CORAM :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :
22nd December, 2022.
Per Court:
1.
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are formal parties. The petitioner prays for leave to delete respondent Nos.5 and 6. Deletion be carried out at the risk of the petitioner. 2.
The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses 'B', 'C' and 'D' as under:- "B) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in like nature that, quash and set aside the order passed by Resp. No. 4 dated 23/05/2022 thereby the proposal of the petitioner for granting benefits of time bound promotion / A.C.P.S. has been rejected.
C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ or
direction in like nature that, the Respondents No. 1 to 4 within a stipulated period to grant benefits of time bound promotion/ A.C.P.S. alongwith the consequential benefits in favour of petitioner as they have completed 12 years service from the date of their respective appointments as Non Teaching Staff in the Resp.No.6 aided Ashram School.
D) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in like nature that, seeking to hold and declare that, the petitioner are to get benefits of order dated 21/09/2013 passed by Hon'ble Principle Seat of of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 2358/2013. And the order dated 07/07/2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 4820/2016 in respect of granting time bound promotion/ A.C.P.S. as per Govt. Resolution dated 30/04/1998 after completion of 12 years service of the petitioner from their date of appointment as Non Teaching Staff of Resp. No. 6 aided Ashram School." 3.
Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the respective sides, we have perused the order dated 21/09/2013, delivered by this Court at the Principal Seat, in Writ Petition No.2358/2013, filed by Kiran Namdeo Shinde and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and the connected maters. We deem it appropriate to reproduce paragraph Nos.17 to 21 of this Judgment, which read as under :-
"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 enables the eligible employees to be placed in higher pay scale. The eligible non-teaching staff of 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 the similarly placed employees discharging similar duties is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
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.
19.
In our view the denial of benefit of ACPS amounts to discrimination, which is hit by the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
20.
As we have already noted that there is already a Government Resolution and a Policy which grants the benefit of ACPS to non-teaching staff of the aided Private Schools, the petitioners who are claiming benefit on the basis of parity will have to satisfy the criteria laid down by the policy which governs the cases of the similarly placed non-teaching staff of the private
aided Schools. Though, we are holding that non-teaching staff in Group 'C' and 'D' posts in aided private Ashram Schools will be entitled to the benefit of ACPS, which is already extended to the non-teaching staff of the aided Private Schools, the question whether individual petitioners satisfy the requirements incorporated in the Government Policy applicable to nonteaching staff of private government aided schools will have to be left to be decided by the appropriate Authorities. 21.
Hence, we dispose of the petitions, by passing the following order :- (i) We declare that the benefit of ACPS, which is applicable to the employees of Group 'C' and 'D' nonteaching staff of the aided Private Schools in the State under the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 1998 as modified from time to time shall be available to the nonteaching staff of the same category in the private aided Ashram Schools ;
(ii) The appropriate Authority appointed by the State Government shall examine the individual cases of the petitioners for deciding whether they satisfy the criteria laid down for availability of the benefit of ACPS to the private aided Government Schools under the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 1998 as modified from time to time;
(iii) We make it clear that the petitioners will be entitled to the benefit of the said scheme, provided they satisfy the eligibility criteria which is prescribed for the corresponding non-teaching staff of the private aided Schools; (iv) We grant time of six months to the respondents to scrutinize the cases of the petitioners and to consider
whether they are eligible for the benefit of ACPS; (v) To those petitioners who are found eligible, the benefit shall be extended, as expeditiously as possible; (vi) Petitions are disposed of on above terms." 4.
The Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad, placed reliance upon the above referred judgment in Writ Petition No.4820/2016, filed by Vinod Shravan Patil and three others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others and connected matters, and granted an identical relief to the said petitioners. The monetary benefits, after conducting a verification exercise, will be paid within six months to the petitioners. The present petitioner is identically placed. 5.
The learned A.G.P. submits that he would not argue against the law settled by this Court in Kiran Namdeo Shinde (supra) and followed in Vinod Shravan Patil (supra).
6.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents/authorities would be at liberty to examine the case of the petitioner for verifying as to whether, he satisfies the criteria laid down for claiming the A.C.P.S. benefits, after completing 12 years in the Private/Aided Ashram Schools, in the light of the Government Resolution dated 30/04/1998, which has been modified by succeeding Government Resolutions from time to time. After concluding the exercise of verification, the amounts, based on entitlements of the
petitioner, would be paid within six months from today. In the event, the authorities arrive at a conclusion that, any petitioner is not entitled, a reasoned order would be passed and the same would be communicated to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 21 days of the decision. Thereafter, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to challenge the said decision, by resorting to a remedy, as is permissible in law.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] nga