Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has directed the State of Maharashtra to frame an appropriate policy within six months for providing salary grants to deserving NGOs running child homes that are functioning in strict compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, holding that the State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to ensure the welfare of children in need of care and protection by routing its responsibilities through voluntary agencies.
A division bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar disposed of twenty writ petitions by a common order pronounced on 07.05.2026, expressing disappointment at the State Government’s continued failure to act despite specific directions issued in earlier proceedings.
The petitioners are employees working in various child homes and Bal-Gruhas run by unaided voluntary organisations and NGOs registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act in the Marathwada region, holding posts including Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Counsellor, Junior Clerk, Caretaker, Cook, and Helper. The staffing pattern and pay scales for these posts were prescribed by Government Resolution dated 29.07.2006, but salary grants were not provided to unaided NGOs.
The issue was not before the Court for the first time. The Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition No. 990 of 1993 in Malan Karale and Others v. Ms. Aloo Chibber and Others, had by judgment dated 08.04.2005 held that petitioners working in Balkalyan Nagari were entitled to the same pay scales as employees working in other institutions of the Children’s Aid Society from the date of institution of the writ petition, and the State was directed to release grants accordingly. The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s Special Leave Petition in 2011, and the State subsequently issued a Government Resolution in 2014 sanctioning salary grants only for the employees of Balkalyan Nagari, leaving similarly placed NGOs without relief.
Thereafter, Writ Petition Nos. 2861/2012 and 2863/2012 were filed before the Aurangabad Bench. By judgment dated 02.05.2014, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to convene a joint meeting of the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, and the Principal Secretary, Finance Department to take an appropriate decision. A meeting was held on 26.05.2014, but the State rejected the proposal for salary grants. The petitioners again approached the Court by filing the present batch of writ petitions.
The State Government submitted that it had not advertised for or called for applications from NGOs to run child homes, that the NGOs themselves approached the Government and expressed willingness to register and run child homes, and that staff appointments were made solely by the organisations and not by the State. It submitted that providing only non-salary grant-in-aid of ₹2,000 per month per child, of which ₹1,500 was for maintenance and ₹500 for other administrative expenses including staff salary, was consistent with the Government Resolution dated 29.07.2006, which expressly stated that no salary grants would be provided. It further submitted that there are 994 children’s homes in Maharashtra with a capacity of 82,859 inmates receiving non-salary grant-in-aid, and that providing salary grants would impose a huge financial burden on the State. It also submitted that many institutions were found without children or staff during surprise inspections and were found to be non-functional, and that all institutions had submitted undertakings to run on their own funding.
The Court observed that under the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, child homes are required to provide care, treatment, education, training, development, and rehabilitation to children in need of care and protection, and that such services can only be delivered by well-educated, trained, and experienced staff. It held that the creation of children’s homes would be an empty formality if children admitted there were not provided proper environment, treatment, education, nourishment, and skill development, and that the quality and efficiency of staff would necessarily depend on the salary structure maintained by the NGOs.
Referring to Article 39(f) of the Constitution, which mandates that children be given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and that childhood and youth be protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment, the Court noted that this provision has been consistently read in conjunction with Articles 14 and 21 by the Supreme Court to impose a positive obligation on the State, relying on Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244, Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 596, and Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433, which held that children’s rights are not charity but a constitutional obligation and that the State cannot plead lack of funds or administrative difficulty. It also relied on Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161, which 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.
The Court observed that it was conscious that Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable in courts, but held, relying on Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789), that directive principles can create obligations and duties binding on the State under the constitutional mandate even where no corresponding enforceable right is created.
The Court expressed disappointment with the manner in which the State Government had dealt with the issue despite specific directions in earlier proceedings, observing that the reasons advanced for not providing salary grants were neither appropriate nor satisfactory. It directed the State Government to identify at least one child home run by a voluntary organisation in each district of the State that has adequate capacity, adequate infrastructure, well-educated and trained staff, and compliance with all legal requirements.
In a significant observation before concluding, the Court noted that when the State of Maharashtra is extending financial assistance to poor women under welfare schemes such as the 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. The Court held that such allocation of resources must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 14, and that the State is under a higher constitutional obligation to prioritise the welfare, education, and rehabilitation of children, failing which the object of the Juvenile Justice law would stand defeated.
The Court directed the State Government to treat the issue as a priority and frame an appropriate policy within six months from the date of the order for providing salary grants to deserving NGOs functioning in strict compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. All twenty writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Yuvraj S/o Santrao Bhole and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others (lead matter) and nineteen connected writ petitions
- Case Numbers: Writ Petition No. 2087 of 2016 and connected Writ Petition Nos. 3005-3011, 3014-3018, 4197-4203 of 2016 (2026:BHC-AUG:20588-DB)
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
- Bench: Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar
- Reserved On: 21.04.2026
- Pronounced On: 07.05.2026
Appearances:
- For the Petitioners: Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate
- For the State: Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Additional Government Pleader
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
