Advocates:
['Bagal Vishal A', 'TAUR KISHOR TARACHAND VP', '', 'AGP', 'COPY SERVED ON GP']

2690.22wp

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

911 WRIT PETITION NO.2690 OF 2022

1.

Vakil Sahebrao Jadahv (Died)

Through his L.Rs.

Anita Vakil Jadhav @

Anita Shankar Rathod

Age: 42 years, Occ. : Household/Pensioner

2.

Ramesh s/o Madhukar Ghuge,

Age: 43 years, Occ.: Service

3.

Dashrath s/o Tukaram Rathod,

Age: 42 years, Occ. : Service

4.

Ushabai Shankar Rathod,

Age: 43 years, Occ.: Service

5.

Sheshrao Tukaram Rathod,

Age: 41 years, Occ.: Service

6.

Janabai Shankar Rathod,

Age: 40 years, Occ.: Service

7.

Janardhan Sahebrao Jadhav,

Age: 41 years, Occ.: Service,

Petitioners No.1 to 7 are all

R/o. Gadadgavhan Tanda,

Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani

...PETTITIONERS

VERSUS

1]

The State of Maharashtra

Through its Secretary,

Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2]

The Director,

V.J.N.T., O.B.C. & Special Backward Class

2690.22wp

(2)

@ Other Backward Bahujan Welfare

Social Welfare Department,

Maharashtra State, Pune

3]

The Deputy Commissioner,

Social Welfare Department,

Division Aurangabad, Aurangabad

4]

The Assisttant Commissioner @

Social Welfare Department,

District Social Welfare Officer,

Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani

5]

The Secretary,

Indira Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

Chitnerwadi, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani

6]

The Head Master,

Late Jorsing Naik Madhyamik Ashram School,

Gadadgavhan Tanda,

Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani

...RESPONDENTS

….

Mr V. P. Kadam, Advocate h/f Mr V. A. Bagal, Advocate for

petitioners;

Mr S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4

Mr K. T. Taur, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 & 6

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

AND

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 23rd November, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per :- Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by

the consent of the parties.

2690.22wp

(3)

2.

The petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (B) and (C),

which read 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 28/01/2022 thereby the

proposal of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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.”

3.

Having considered the submissions of the learned

Advocates 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

2690.22wp

(4)

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