The Bombay High Court has clarified that employees of autonomous bodies like the Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI) are entitled to benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), even if the scheme is not explicitly extended to them by the government. The Court held that denying such benefits arbitrarily violates principles of natural justice, especially when the autonomous body bears the financial burden and no additional strain is placed on the state exchequer.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, employees of WALMI, an autonomous body under the Maharashtra government, were initially granted promotional benefits under the ACPS introduced by the state government through Government Resolution (GR) dated 08.06.1995. The scheme aimed to address stagnation by granting promotional benefits to employees who completed 12 years of service but could not be promoted due to the unavailability of functional posts. The petitioners were granted these benefits in 1996, with post facto approval from the government in 2009.
In 2010, the state government issued another GR dated 01.04.2010, extending the ACPS benefits to employees completing 24 years of service. WALMI granted the petitioners these benefits, but the government subsequently issued a communication dated 13.07.2012, directing WALMI to withdraw the benefits and recover the salary difference paid to the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Bombay High Court.
Key Facts
- The ACPS was introduced by the Maharashtra government via GR dated 08.06.1995, granting promotional benefits after 12 years of service.
- The petitioners were appointed in WALMI in various capacities (Junior Clerks, Senior Clerks, Field Assistants, etc.).
- WALMI granted the petitioners ACPS benefits in 1996, with post facto approval from the government in 2009.
- The state government issued GR dated 01.04.2010, extending ACPS benefits after 24 years of service.
- WALMI granted the petitioners the second set of ACPS benefits, but the government issued a communication dated 13.07.2012, directing withdrawal of benefits and recovery of salary differences.
- The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the government’s communication dated 09.08.2012.
Procedural History
- 24.01.2014: Writ petitions admitted by the Bombay High Court.
- 09.06.2026: Arguments heard by the Division Bench (Kishore C. Sant and Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.).
- 18.06.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the government’s communication dated 09.08.2012.
- A direction to the government to sanction the ACPS benefits already granted by WALMI.
- Release of benefits within six months, with 6% interest per annum for delays.
The Legal Issue
The central questions before the Court were:
- Whether employees of autonomous bodies like WALMI are entitled to ACPS benefits under the state government’s scheme, even if the scheme is not explicitly extended to them.
- Whether the government’s refusal to sanction such benefits, without considering the financial provisions made by the autonomous body, is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners argued that once the ACPS benefits were made applicable to them, the government could not arbitrarily withdraw them after 24 years of service.
- The government’s action violated principles of natural justice, as no hearing was provided before withdrawing the benefits.
- WALMI had made financial provisions to bear the salary expenses, and there was no burden on the state exchequer.
- The government’s earlier post facto approval in 2009 implied acceptance of the scheme’s applicability to WALMI employees.
For the Respondent-State
- The Additional Government Pleader contended that the ACPS scheme was applicable only to state government employees and employees of Zilla Parishads.
- The initial approval granted to WALMI was an exception, and no prior sanction was obtained for subsequent benefits.
- The scheme could not be extended to autonomous bodies without explicit government approval.
For Respondent No. 2 (WALMI)
- WALMI supported the petitioners, stating that it had made financial provisions to bear the salary expenses and that there would be no burden on the state exchequer.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the aims and objectives of the ACPS scheme, which was introduced to address stagnation and encourage employees by providing promotional opportunities. The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Sunanda Ashok Sonawane v. District Judge, Dhule, which emphasized that the scheme’s purpose is to remove stagnation and ensure career progression.
"The main object of the scheme is to remove stagnation. Considering the aim and object of the scheme, this Court finds that depriving the employees of such benefits certainly creates feeling of disappointment in the employees. It is natural for the employees to work with zeal when there are promotional opportunities. In absence of any progression in their careers, the employees may not feel encouraged."
The Court observed that:
- The government had already granted post facto approval for the initial ACPS benefits in 2009, implying acceptance of the scheme’s applicability to WALMI employees.
- The government’s argument that the scheme was not explicitly extended to autonomous bodies was untenable, as WALMI had made financial provisions to bear the salary expenses.
- The impugned communication dated 09.08.2012 was arbitrary, as it did not consider the financial provisions made by WALMI or the principles of natural justice.
- The Court noted that a communication from WALMI dated 21.11.2025 clearly stated that the salary expenses could be borne by WALMI, and no burden would be placed on the state exchequer.
The Court held that the government’s refusal to sanction the benefits was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice, especially since WALMI was willing and able to bear the financial burden.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the government’s communication dated 09.08.2012. The Court directed:
- The government to release the ACPS benefits to the petitioners within six months from the date of the judgment.
- If the benefits are not released within the stipulated period, the government shall pay 6% interest per annum on the delayed amount.
- The petitions were allowed in terms of the specific prayer clauses mentioned in the judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Autonomous Bodies Can Extend ACPS Benefits
- Employees of autonomous bodies are entitled to ACPS benefits if the body bears the financial burden, even if the scheme is not explicitly extended to them by the government.
- The government cannot arbitrarily deny such benefits without considering the financial provisions made by the autonomous body.
Principles of Natural Justice Must Be Followed
- Any action withdrawing benefits or imposing recoveries must follow principles of natural justice, including providing a hearing to the affected employees.
- Arbitrary decisions by the government, especially those affecting employees’ career progression, are liable to be set aside by courts.
Financial Provisions by Autonomous Bodies Are Key
- If an autonomous body has made financial provisions to bear the expenses of promotional benefits, the government cannot deny sanction on the ground of financial burden.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the government’s decision is arbitrary or based on proper application of mind.
