Bombay High Court
LOTAN VITTHAL PATIL AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court quashed the 14‑03‑2024 Government Resolution as applied to non‑teaching staff and held that the petitioners are entitled to the second ACPS benefit from the date of completion of 24 years of service under the 01‑04‑2010 resolution, subject to eligibility criteria.
Summary
The petitioners, non‑teaching employees of grant‑in‑aid secondary schools in Maharashtra, challenged a Government Resolution dated 14‑03‑2024 that granted the second benefit under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) with retrospective effect from 01‑01‑2024. They argued that the earlier resolution of 01‑04‑2010 already provided for the second benefit after 24 years of service and that the 2024 resolution was discriminatory and contrary to the Court’s earlier judgments. The State contended that ACPS is a policy incentive, not a statutory right, and that it could set its own implementation dates. The Court examined prior decisions, notably Writ Petition No. 334/2018, which had directed the extension of the second benefit to all similarly situated non‑teaching staff. It held that the 2024 resolution, as applied retrospectively, was arbitrary and ultra vires, quashing it and directing the respondents to grant the second benefit from the date of completion of 24 years of service per the 2010 resolution, subject to eligibility, and to release all consequential benefits within six months. Both writ petitions were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolution dated 14‑03‑2024 granting the second ACPS benefit to non‑teaching staff with retrospective effect is valid.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the second benefit of ACPS after 24 years of service under the 01‑04‑2010 resolution.
- Whether ACPS creates a statutory right enforceable by the courts or is merely a policy decision.
- Whether the implementation date of the 2024 resolution is arbitrary and discriminatory in violation of earlier court directions.
- Whether the respondents must provide all consequential benefits (revised pay, arrears, pension) upon granting the second benefit.
Subjects
- Assured Career Progression Scheme
- non‑teaching staff
- grant‑in‑aid schools
- second benefit
- retrospective implementation
- discrimination
- writ petition
- eligibility criteria
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:13155-DB
1 4733.2019WP+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
941 WRIT PETITION NO. 4733 OF 2019
1. Tarabai d/o Gujar Ahire
Age : 49 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Gurudatta Madhymaik Vidyalaya,
Karkhana site, Bhadne, Tq. Sakri,
District Dhule.
2. Kashinath S/o Bansilal Chaudhari
Age : 54 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Sharda Madhyamik Vidya Mandir,
Bhadne, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule.
..PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule.
3. The Accounts Officer (Senior Auditor),
Education Department, Dhule,
Tq. and Dist. Dhule.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5937 OF 2019
1. Noormohmad Khan Amanullah Khan
Age : 42 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Alfalah High School Muktainagar,
Tq Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Abdul Rahim Shaikh Usman Pinjari
Age : 51 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Aqsa Nagar, Skali, Tq. Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2 4733.2019WP+.odt
..PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
3. The Accounts Officer (Senior Auditor),
Education Department, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14709 OF 2019
1. Lotan S/o Vitthal Patil
Age : 46 years, Occ : Service,
2. Dhananjay S/o Baburao Wagh
Age : 57 years, Occ : Service,
Both R/o At Post. Ranaiche,
Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
..PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
3. The Accounts Officer (Senior Auditor),
Education Department, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon.
..RESPONDENTS
...
3 4733.2019WP+.odt
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. M.K. Goyanka
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 18th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J) :
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matters are
taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent and
request of the parties.
2. As common issue is arising in all these Petitions, they are
taken up to decide together. Writ Petition No. 4733/2019 is taken as
leading case for consideration of facts and other material.
3. The Petitioners by this petition are challenging the validity
and propriety of the Government Resolution dated 14.03.2024, which
implements the second benefit under the Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme to the non-teaching employees of the grant-in-aid
schools, after completion of 24 years of service, from 01.01.2024. The
Petitioners are further seeking directions to release the consequential
benefits namely revised pay fixations, arrears of salary, revised
retirement benefits, monthly pension and directions to release all
monetary benefits.
4. The Petitioners are non-teaching employees working in
Secondary schools in the State of Maharashtra in Group-C and Group-D
posts. In order to avoid stagnation in promotion, the State Government
has implemented a Time Bound Promotion Scheme dated 08.06.1995,
which was later cancelled and replaced by the Assured Career
Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “ACPS”) vide
4 4733.2019WP+.odt
Government Resolution dated 20.07.2001.
5. The ACPS was modified as per Government Resolution
dated 01.04.2010 and grant of first benefit (Senior Scale) after
completion of 12 years of service from the date of joining and second
benefit after completion of 24 years of service was made applicable to
employees of Government, Zilla Parishad, Municipal Councils,
Corporations, Universities and teachers of grant-in-aid schools. The
modified ACPS was implemented with effect from 01.10.2006.
6. It is contended that after 14 years, the Respondent No. 1
issued a Government Resolution dated 14.03.2024, thereby granting
second benefit after service of 24 years to the non-teaching employees
of grant-in-aid schools with effect from 01.01.2024. It is the contention
of the Petitioners that they are eligible for the second benefit from their
respective due dates immediately after completion of their 24 years
service.
7. It is the contention of the Petitioners that, the Government
Resolution dated 01.04.2010 was made applicable to the employees of
the Government and teaching staff from 01.10.2006 and therefore the
implementation date of the Government Resolution dated 14.03.2024
is discriminatory and arbitrary.
8. It is further contended by the Petitioners that the issue of
grant of second benefit after 24 years of service to the non-teaching
employees of grant-in-aid schools has been already decided by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 334/2018 vide its judgment and order dated
04.10.2018 and the employees were held to be entitled from due dates
5 4733.2019WP+.odt
along with all consequential benefits and was made applicable to all
the non-teaching employees of the schools in the State.
9. In support of their claim, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners have relied on judgment in Writ Petition No.334/2018 (Shri
Suresh Bhanudas Shinde & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
with other connected matters, dated 04.10.2028.
10. Per Contra, the Respondent No.1 and 2 in their reply have
contended that, ACPS is an incentive scheme and not a statutory right
of the employees. The implementation of ACPS is not a statutory
obligation of the State Government and therefore the employees cannot
claim benefits as a matter of right under the scheme. It is further
contended that the State Government is the only competent authority
to take policy decision regarding the employees in this matter and
therefore the petitions are liable to be quashed and set aside.
11. It is further contended by the Respondents that, the nature
of work provided by the teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools
is different from each other and the non-teaching employees are not
the Government Employees of the State, therefore, the Petitioners
cannot claim parity with the Teaching Staff of the Government. It is
contention of the learned AGP that it is a policy decision and many
factors affecting to give the date of implementation in the GR. In
support of arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied
on State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors., with connected
matters, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 193.
12. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
6 4733.2019WP+.odt
Perused the documents placed on record and considered the citations
relied on by the learned Counsel for the parties.
13. In the judgment of this Court at Principal Seat in Writ
Petition No.334 of 2018 and connected matters, it is held as follows :-
“5 Having regard to the fact that there are already
precedents by way of order passed in Writ Petition No.922 of
2014 and Writ Petition No.924 of 2014, we deem it
appropriate to follow the said precedents. We are also
informed by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners that the second benefit is already extended by the
Higher Education Department by Government Resolution
dated 15-2-2011 to the teaching staff, as also the teachers
working in the School Education Department are getting the
said benefit. We therefore find no reason as to why the said
benefit cannot be extended to the Petitioners above named.
The above Petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent of
directing the Respondents to grant the second benefit after 24
years of service to the Petitioners, if they are entitled to the
same. The same to be done within 8 weeks from date. Rule is
accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
6 We hope and trust that the Respondents would extend
the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme in so
far as the second benefit after 24 years is concerned to all the
non teaching staff who are similarly situated as the
Petitioners above named and it would not be necessary for
them to approach this court for getting the said relief.”
14. This Court at Nagpur Bench has delivered a judgment in
Writ Petition No.6626/2024 and connected Writ Petition on
12.03.2026, wherein by placing reliance on the decision in Writ Petition
Nos.334/2018, 922/2014 and 924/2014, it is held as follows :-
7 4733.2019WP+.odt
"16. Our attention is drawn to the GR dated 14/03/2024
by which the second ACPS is made applicable with effect
from 01/01/2024. In view of the observations made in Writ
Petition No.334 of 2020 along with connected matters
(supra), the judgment was made applicable to all the non-
teaching staff at the private grant-in-aid schools. the
petitioners in the said petition were granted the relief of
second benefit of ACPS from the completion of 24 years of
service from their first appointment. The arrears of salary
and all consequential benefits were also granted. Thus,
implementation of second benefit of ACPS as per GR dated
14/03/2024 is contrary to the directions issued by this
Court in the judgment in Writ Petition No.334 of 2018
along with connected matters (supra). Thus, the stipulation
on the date of implementation of second ACPS is arbitrary
and against the decision of this Court. As such, we proceed
to pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Both the writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned GR dated 14/03/2024 to the extent
that it is made applicable to the non-teaching staff with
effect from 01/01/2024 with retrospective effect is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondents are hereby directed to grant second
benefit of ACPS to the petitioners from the date mentioned
in the chart at Annexure-A in Writ Petition No.6626 of
2024 and Chart reproduced in para-2, page-4 in Writ
Petition No.4049 of 2024 as per the provisions of GR dated
01/04/2010. However, the same is subject to examination
of individual cases for deciding whether they satisfy the
criteria laid down for availability of the benefit of ACPS.
(iv) The petitioners shall have to satisfy the requisite
eligibility criteria.
(v) We direct the respondents to apply second ACPS to
the petitioners as early as possible preferably within a
period of six months. Needless to mention here that the
petitioners are entitled to all the consequential benefits, i.e.
revised pay fixation, arrears of salary, revised retirement
8 4733.2019WP+.odt
benefits, monthly pension, which have been released,
within a period of six months from the date of this order."
15. Since this Court has already quashed and set aside the
impugned Government Resolution dated 14/03/2024 to the extent it is
made applicable to non-teaching staff w.e.f. 01.01.2024 with
retrospective effect, Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed. Hence the
following order :-
ORDER
(i) Both the writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The respondents are hereby directed to grant second benefit of
ACPS to the petitioners from the date immediately after completion of
their 24 years service as per the provisions of GR dated 01/04/2010.
However, the same is subject to examination of individual cases for
deciding whether they satisfy the criteria laid down for availability of
the benefit of ACPS.
(iii) The petitioners shall have to satisfy the requisite eligibility
criteria.
(iv) We direct the respondents to apply second ACPS to the
petitioners as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.
Needless to mention here that the petitioners are entitled to all the
consequential benefits, i.e. revised pay fixation, arrears of salary,
revised retirement benefits, monthly pension, which have been
released, within a period of six months from the date of this order.
16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI,J.)
sga
Checking your session…