Bombay High Court

SHIVRAJ SUBHASH BANDE AND ORSversusTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner must consider the petitioners’ applications and grant ACPS benefits if they satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of Class IV employees, sought the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) which the Bombay High Court had earlier extended to similar staff in private aided schools. They alleged that the Assistant Commissioner failed to act on their applications despite a Government Resolution of 3 October 2017 directing action. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Kiran Namdeo Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, which held that ACPS benefits apply to non‑teaching staff of private aided Ashram schools. It observed that the appropriate authority must examine each petitioner's eligibility and grant the benefit where applicable. Consequently, the Court directed the Respondent to consider the petitions and, if the petitioners meet the criteria, to approve the ACPS benefits within four weeks. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) is applicable to the petitioners under the Government Resolution dated 3 October 2017.
Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s inaction violates the directive of the Court’s earlier judgment in Kiran Namdeo Shinde v. State of Maharashtra.
Whether the appropriate authority must examine individual cases and grant ACPS benefits if eligibility criteria are satisfied.

Subjects

Assured Career Progression Scheme
ACPS
Government Resolution
non‑teaching staff
private aided schools
employment benefits
writ petition
high court direction

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:8696-DB

14-WP-15298-2024(C).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 15298 OF 2024

Shivraj Subhash Bande And Others ...Petitioners
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner And Others ...Respondents
——————
Mr. I. M. Khairdi a/w Mr. Ruturaj Kadam, for the Petitioners.
Mr. R.P. Kadam, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026.

P. C. :

1. By the present petition, the inaction on the part of the

Respondents to grant the benefit of the Assured Career Progression

Scheme, (“ACPS”) to the Petitioners, which has been made applicable

even to the Class IV employees by the decision of this Court in the case

of Kiran Namdeo Shinde and Others versus State of Maharashtra and

Others1, is under challenge.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that

initially the petitions were filed before this Court by some of the

Petitioners, who were relegated to the mechanism provided under the

Government Resolution dated 3rd October, 2017. He submits

1 In Writ Petition No. 2358 of 2013 and connected Writ Petitions, decided on 21st September, 2013.

Jamadar-SL 1 of 3
14-WP-15298-2024(C).doc

that, however, the Government Resolution dated 3 rd October, 2017 will

apply in the event of any complaint and, as the issue now stands

decided, it is only a question of applicability of the benefit and not its

determination. He would further point out that the Regional Deputy

Director has directed the Assistant Commissioner to take action at his

level, however, no such action has been taken.

3. We have perused the Judgment of this Court in the case of Kiran

Namdeo Shinde and Others (supra), where this Court has held that the

benefit of the ACPS, which is applicable to the employees of Groups C

and D non-teaching staff of the aided private schools in the State under

the Government Resolution dated 30 th April, 1998, as modified from

time to time, will also be available to the non-teaching staff of the same

category in the private aided Ashram schools.

4. Pertinently, the appropriate authorities were directed to examine

the individual cases of the Petitioners, provided they satisfy the

eligibility criteria. Even if there was a specific direction to examine the

individual cases of the Petitioners, it was incumbent upon the

appropriate authority to extend the benefits of the ACPS to the

Petitioners who were identically placed. We do not find any

consideration by the Assistant Commissioner, who is the concerned

authority to the applications made by the present Petitioners seeking

benefit of the ACPS.

Jamadar-SL 2 of 3
14-WP-15298-2024(C).doc

5. In light of the settled position in law, the Respondent No.1 is

directed to consider the case of the Petitioners and to issue necessary

approval for grant of benefits. In the event, the Petitioners are found

eligible, grant the benefits.

6. The entire exercise to be carried out by the Respondent No.1

within a period of four weeks from today.

7. The Petition is allowed in the above terms.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

Jamadar-SL 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…