19 WP 10381-22-C.DOC Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10381 OF 2022 Vasundhara Trimbak Mane and anr. …Petitioners Versus The Registrar General, Bombay High Court and ors. …Respondents Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy and Ms. Seema Sorte and Mr. Aalim N. Pinjari, for the Petitioners. Mr. Girish Agrawal with Mr. Shubham Jangam, for the Respondents Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED: 13th NOVEMBER, 2025. PC:- 1. Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the short issue arising for the decision of this Court in this case is, as to whether, after having granted the benefit Revised Assured Career Progress Scheme (RACPS), the same can be withdrawn subsequently, merely on the ground that Petitioners have failed to appear in the selection process held for promotion. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that his clients had subsequently appeared in the selection process and were also duly promoted. The learned counsel further submits that the same issue had arisen for consideration of the full Bench of this Court in the case of Sunanda Ashok Sonawane Vs. District Judge, 13th November, 2025. PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2025.11.14 11:04:20 +0530 19 WP 10381-22-C.DOC District Court, Dhule and ors., reported in 2024 (3) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 327, wherein the Court has answered the question so raised, in favour of the employees. As such, the matter is covered by the said judgment of the full Bench. 2. Mr. Girish Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 has also fairly submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is covered by the judgment in the case of Sunanda Ashok Sonawane Vs. District Judge, District Court, Dhule and ors. (supra). In paragraph No.42 of Sunanda Ashok Sonawane Vs. District Judge, District Court, Dhule and ors. (supra), the full Bench has held as follows: “42. In these circumstances, we conclude that it would be open to an employer/ establishment to meticulously verify each case on completion of 12 years (first segment) and 24 years (second segment) of service on the same post (meaning that he is stagnated). If at those stages, he is held eligible, the ACPS benefits would be extended to him. Once a candidate is held eligible for the 1st ACPS monetary benefits, the said benefits cannot be withdrawn for subsequently having been found ineligible at the time of the de- facto promotion. As like the examples cited above, declaring the person ineligible with retrospective effect or deprive him of the benefits which he has qualified to earn earlier, is irrational, illogical and unjustified. Therefore, for not reaching the benchmark, stoppage of the benefits, already extended after due compliance of clause 2(5) of the 13th November, 2025. 19 WP 10381-22-C.DOC 2001 GR at the stage of completion of 12 years, is impermissible. This would not be applicable to a case of disqualification, viz. when a candidate refuses to accept the actual promotional post when selected and declines to shoulder the responsibilities of the said post.” 3. From the above, it is clear that the core issue raised in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of the full Bench. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21st May, 2018, whereby the benefit of RACPS given to the Petitioners stood withdrawn as well as the subsequent order dated 27th November, 2021 rejecting the representation filed by the Petitioners is hereby quashed. The pecuniary benefits due and payable to the Writ Petitioners be processed and released in their favour, in accordance with law. 4. The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. (S. M. MODAK, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) { 13th November, 2025.