Case Name: Yuvraj & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Petition Number: Writ Petition No. 2087 of 2016 (and connected Writ Petitions)
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:20588-DB
Date of Judgment: 07 May 2026
Coram: Honourable Justice Kishore C. Sant & Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar
INTRODUCTION
The primary issue before the Court was whether employees of children’s homes run by voluntary organisations could claim salary grants and parity with government-aided institutions as a matter of right under the statutory framework. The Court examined whether the existing government resolutions and the Juvenile Justice Act created an enforceable obligation on the State to provide such financial support. It ultimately addressed the balance between fiscal limitations and constitutional duties towards child welfare. The decision turned on the larger principle that institutional arrangements for children must operate in a manner consistent with constitutional values and statutory mandates.
FACTS
The petitioners were employees working in children’s homes (Balgruhas) run by un-aided voluntary organisations in Maharashtra. They held posts such as superintendent, counsellor, clerk, caretaker, and cook, and their staffing pattern was prescribed by Government Resolution dated 29.07.2006. However, these NGOs were not receiving salary grants from the State, even though they were registered and functioning under the Juvenile Justice framework.
Over time, the State had issued various Government Resolutions relating to grant-in-aid and recognition of such institutions. Some institutions received limited financial assistance per child, but salary components remained disputed. Meanwhile, earlier litigation had already addressed similar issues, and directions had been issued to the State to consider the question of salary grants. Yet, according to the petitioners, no comprehensive decision was taken.
As a result, the employees again approached the High Court seeking directions to the State to sanction and release salary grants and to treat them at par with employees of government-aided children’s homes. The State, on the other hand, argued that the NGOs were independent entities, that staff were appointed by them, and that there was no statutory obligation to provide salary grants. Hence, the dispute centred on whether such employees could claim parity and whether the State had a binding duty to fund their salaries.
ISSUES
- Whether employees of children’s homes run by voluntary organisations are entitled, as a matter of right, to salary grants from the State Government.
- Whether the State is under a constitutional or statutory obligation to extend salary assistance to such NGOs functioning under the Juvenile Justice framework.
- Whether the refusal to grant salary aid violates constitutional principles such as equality under Article 14 and the State’s obligations under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
- Whether the earlier directions of the Court and existing Government Resolutions create an enforceable duty on the State to reconsider or sanction salary grants for similarly placed institutions.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioners submitted that they work in Children’s Homes functioning under the Juvenile Justice framework, and their staffing pattern is already recognised by the Government Resolution. They argued that the denial of salary grants, while similar institutions receive support, violates Article 14 and is inconsistent with earlier court directions. They further contended that under Articles 21, 37, 38, and 39, the State has a constitutional duty to ensure the proper functioning of child welfare institutions, including adequate staffing and remuneration.
Respondent’s Argument: The State argued that the NGOs are independent bodies and their employees are appointed by them, not by the Government. It is submitted that neither the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, nor the Rules mandate payment of salary grants. The Government further stated that providing salary grants would impose a heavy financial burden, and that issues of salary and service conditions are matters of contract between the NGO and its employees and cannot be automatically equated with government service.
JUDGEMENT AND REASONING
After considering the rival submissions, the Court held that the issue must be examined in light of the constitutional mandate for child welfare and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It was observed that children’s homes are not mere private institutions; they perform statutory functions for the care, protection, education, and rehabilitation of vulnerable children. Therefore, adequate infrastructure and well-trained staff are essential to fulfil the Act’s objectives.
The Court reasoned that while voluntary organisations manage these homes, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with welfare legislation rests with the State. Relying on Articles 14 and 21, the Directive Principles, and Supreme Court precedents, the Bench noted that the State cannot avoid its obligations merely by citing financial constraints. It emphasised that children’s rights are constitutional obligations, not acts of charity.
The Court further observed that earlier judicial directions had already required the State to consider salary grants. Since no comprehensive policy decision had been taken, the Court directed the State to reconsider the matter and frame an appropriate policy within six months, giving priority to deserving institutions functioning in strict compliance with the Act.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that the welfare of children is a constitutional priority and that institutions created under the Juvenile Justice framework must function effectively to serve that purpose. While it did not immediately grant salary parity, it recognised the State’s responsibility to seriously reconsider the issue and frame a suitable policy. The judgment ultimately reflects a balance between administrative discretion and the higher constitutional duty to protect children’s rights.
