Article 14 & ACPS Scheme | Bombay HC Grants Retrospective Second-Time Benefits to Non-Teaching Staff, Quashes Discriminatory GR : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the entitlement of non-teaching staff in aided educational institutions to the second-time benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The Court quashed the discriminatory provision in the Government Resolution (GR) dated 14.03.2024, which had restricted the benefit to prospective effect from 01.01.2024, and directed that the benefit be granted retrospectively from the date of completion of 24 years of service, subject to eligibility criteria.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, comprising 41 non-teaching staff members working in various aided educational institutions across Jalgaon district, Maharashtra, challenged the Government Resolution (GR) dated 14.03.2024. The GR had extended the second-time benefit of the ACPS scheme to non-teaching staff but only with prospective effect from 01.01.2024, unlike teaching staff who were granted the benefit retrospectively. The petitioners contended that this differentiation was arbitrary and violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Key Facts

• The ACPS scheme, introduced by the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010, provides for career progression benefits to government and aided school employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service.
• The petitioners were initially granted the first-time benefit of ACPS on completion of 12 years of service.
• The GR dated 14.03.2024 extended the second-time benefit to non-teaching staff but only from 01.01.2024, while teaching staff were granted the benefit retrospectively.
• The petitioners argued that this differentiation was discriminatory, as there was no intelligible differentia between teaching and non-teaching staff for the purpose of the ACPS scheme.

Procedural History

The petitioners relied on two key judgments to support their case:

• WP/6626/2024 (Nagpur Bench): This judgment held that the GR dated 14.03.2024 was discriminatory to the extent that it granted the second-time ACPS benefit prospectively. The Court quashed the GR and directed retrospective application.
• WP/4733/2019 (Aurangabad Bench): This judgment, dated 18.03.2026, relied on the principles laid down in WP/6626/2024 and extended the benefit to similarly situated employees.

The respondents, represented by the State of Maharashtra, opposed the petition on the grounds that:

• The cadres of teaching and non-teaching staff were distinct, and the benefit could not be extended merely by analogy.
• The judgment in WP/334/2018, which formed the basis of the Nagpur Bench's decision, was under review (Review Petition (ST) No. 3452 of 2019), and a stay had been granted on its operation.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought the following reliefs:

• Quashing of the GR dated 14.03.2024 to the extent that it restricted the second-time ACPS benefit to prospective effect.
• A direction to the respondents to grant the second-time ACPS benefit retrospectively from the date of completion of 24 years of service, in line with the GR dated 01.04.2010.
• Consequential benefits, including revised pay fixation, arrears of salary, revised retirement benefits, and monthly pension.

The Legal Issue

The central legal question before the Court was whether the Government Resolution dated 14.03.2024 was discriminatory in granting the second-time ACPS benefit to non-teaching staff only prospectively, while teaching staff were entitled to the benefit retrospectively. Further, the Court had to determine whether the differentiation between teaching and non-teaching staff was justified under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• The petitioners relied on the judgments in WP/6626/2024 and WP/4733/2019, which had quashed similar discriminatory provisions in the GR dated 14.03.2024.
• They argued that there was no intelligible differentia between teaching and non-teaching staff to justify the differential treatment under the ACPS scheme.
• The petitioners contended that the GR dated 01.04.2010 had already extended the ACPS benefit to all employees, and the subsequent GR could not arbitrarily restrict it.

For the Respondent/State

• The learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) opposed the petition, arguing that the cadres of teaching and non-teaching staff were distinct, and the benefit could not be extended by analogy.
• The AGP submitted that the judgment in WP/334/2018, which had influenced the Nagpur Bench's decision, was under review, and its operation had been stayed by the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court.
• The State contended that the GR dated 14.03.2024 was a policy decision and could not be interfered with lightly.

The Court's Analysis

The Court began its analysis by noting that the review petitions filed against the judgment in WP/334/2018 were of the year 2019, while the GR dated 14.03.2024 had already been framed to extend the second-time ACPS benefit to non-teaching staff. The Court observed that there was no challenge to the judgments in WP/6626/2024 or WP/4733/2019, which had quashed the discriminatory provision in the GR.

The Court emphasized the principle of equality under Article 14 and held that there was no intelligible differentia between teaching and non-teaching staff to justify the differential treatment. The Court noted:

"We do not see any reason as to when second time ACPS benefit is made applicable to the teaching staff why the same should not be made applicable to the non-teaching staff. There is nothing to show intelligible differentia between the cases of teaching and non-teaching staff."

The Court further observed that the State Government had already accepted that non-teaching staff were entitled to the second-time ACPS benefit, and the only issue was the retrospective application of the benefit. The Court held that the GR dated 14.03.2024 was discriminatory to the extent that it restricted the benefit to prospective effect and quashed it accordingly.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the writ petition and passed the following directions:

1. The impugned GR dated 14.03.2024 was quashed and set aside to the extent that it granted the second-time ACPS benefit to non-teaching staff only from 01.01.2024.
2. The respondents were directed to grant the second-time ACPS benefit to the petitioners retrospectively from the date they completed 24 years of service, as per the provisions of the GR dated 01.04.2010.
3. The grant of the benefit was subject to examination of individual cases to determine eligibility under the ACPS scheme.
4. The respondents were directed to apply the second-time ACPS benefit to eligible petitioners within six months from the date of the judgment.
5. The petitioners were held entitled to all consequential benefits, including revised pay fixation, arrears of salary, revised retirement benefits, and monthly pension.

The Court made the rule absolute in the above terms and directed no costs to be awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Equality in Service Benefits: No Arbitrary Differentiation

• The judgment reinforces the principle that service benefits, such as career progression schemes, cannot be arbitrarily denied to certain categories of employees without a valid and intelligible differentia.
• Practitioners should argue that any differentiation between teaching and non-teaching staff (or other similarly placed employees) must be justified under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Retrospective Application of Benefits

• The Court has clarified that when a Government Resolution extends a benefit to a class of employees, it must be applied retrospectively unless there is a valid reason for prospective application.
• Employees who have been denied benefits under similar schemes can challenge the prospective application of such benefits and seek retrospective relief.

Compliance and Timelines

• The judgment sets a strict timeline of six months for the respondents to comply with the Court's directions. This underscores the importance of adhering to judicial timelines in service matters.
• Employees can seek mandamus to ensure timely compliance with court orders, especially in cases involving arrears of salary, pension, or other retirement benefits.

Precedent for Future Challenges

• The judgment provides a strong precedent for challenging discriminatory provisions in Government Resolutions or policies that deny benefits to certain categories of employees.
• Practitioners can rely on this judgment to argue for equal treatment in service matters, particularly where the State has already accepted the entitlement of a benefit but restricts its application arbitrarily.