Bombay High Court: In writ petitions filed by employees of children’s homes managed by unaided NGOs, seeking salary grants and pay scales equivalent to those of government employees, the Division Bench of Kishore C. Sant and Sushil M. Ghodeswar, JJ., held that such employees are entitled to salary support. The Court emphasised that the State cannot evade its constitutional obligations under Articles 14, 21 and 39(f) of the Constitution and directed the Government to frame, within six months, a policy for providing salary grants to deserving NGOs functioning strictly in compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act).
The Court observed that,
“It is not expected to make salary payments at par with those of Government employees working on similarly posts and performing same duties, however, the Government cannot absolve or run away from its duties and expectations as per Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Constitution.”
Background
The petitioners were employees working as Superintendents, Counsellors, Clerks, Cooks, Caretakers, and Helpers in children’s homes managed by unaided voluntary organizations registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Their grievance was that although staffing patterns and pay scales were prescribed by Government Resolution dated 29 July 2006, no salary grants were provided. They relied on Section 34, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (2000 Act), which was later Section 50, 2015 Act, empowering the State to establish and maintain children’s homes either by itself or in association with voluntary organisations.
The petitioners argued that earlier judgments had already recognised the entitlement of similarly placed employees to equal pay and directed the State to sanction salary grants. They contended that despite repeated representations, the State failed to act.
The State submitted that NGOs voluntarily registered to run children’s homes and undertook to manage them with their own funding. It was argued that only non-salary grants of Rs 2000 per child per month were provided, and that staff appointments were made by NGOs, not the State. As per the State, the State of Maharashtra has highest number of Children’s Homes i.e. 994 homes with 82,859 inmates capacity receiving non salary grant in aid from the government. Hence, it was emphasised that providing salary grants would impose a huge financial burden, especially since many institutions were non-functional or had no admissions.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that Article 39(f) of the Constitution mandates that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment. The Court noted that though Article 39(f) of the Constitution is the part of the Directive Principles, this provision has been consistently read in conjunction with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to impose a positive obligation upon the State.
The Court highlighted that under the scheme of law, the children’s homes must contain well educated, trained and experienced staff to provide all the facilities or activities. However, the creation of children’s homes would be an empty formality if the children admitted there are not provided proper environment, treatment, education, nourishment, skill development and all that is prescribed under the Act and Rules.
The Court observed that the voluntary organisations or the Non-Government Organisations are running these children’s homes in the State of Maharashtra and the quality and efficiency of the staff of children homes will be depending upon the payment or salary structure maintained by these NGOs. The Court noted that it is not expected to make salary payments at par with those of Government employees working on similarly posts and performing same duties, however, the Government cannot absolve or run away from its duties and expectations as per Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasised that the staff unless and until adequately paid is not expected to perform well and as such, will certainly disturb the administration as well as performance of the children homes. Further, well-educated and trained staff is necessary at each Bal Gruha since the children admitted in such Bal Gruha are not expected to achieve heights in their carrier or build strong future if they are not provided proper attention, care, nourishment, education etc.
The Court referred to Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, wherein the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that where the State is under a constitutional or statutory obligation to ensure basic human dignity, it cannot avoid its responsibility on the ground that such obligations are being discharged through voluntary agencies and also the ultimate responsibility to ensure compliance with welfare legislation rests with the State.
Decision
The Court emphasised that the State Government shall create or identify at least one children’s home in each district of Maharashtra, run by a voluntary organization, which has good capacity, proper infrastructure, well-educated and trained staff, and complies with all legal requirements.
The Court observed that,
“When the State of Maharashtra is extending financial assistance to poor women in the State under several welfare schemes such as Ladki Bahin Yojana, it cannot, without any reasonable classification or justification, deny or delay financial aid to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection. Such allocation of resources must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 14. The State is under higher constitutional obligation to prioritise the welfare, education, and rehabilitation of children, failing which the very object of the Juvenile Justice law would stand defeated and the larger societal interest would be seriously jeopardised.”
The Court directed that the State Government must give priority to this issue and frame an appropriate policy within six months for providing salary grants to deserving NGOs functioning strictly in compliance with the 2015 Act.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with these observations.
[Yuvraj v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2087 of 2016, decided on 7-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. GP
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 HERE
