Bombay High Court
Manzoor S/O Ghulam Ahmed And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its … on 14 August, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:8432-DB
1/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4233/2018
1. Manzoor S/o Ghulam Ahmed,
Aged about 41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Opposite Jadhao Kirana,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal - 445204,
2. Vilas S/o Kaduji Kankal,
Aged about 39 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Jagdhamba Park, Kawdipur,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
3. Nilesh S/o Ganeshrao Pawar,
Aged about 38 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Behind Panchwati Hanuman Mandir,
Tirupati Park, Shrirampur, Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal.
4. Rajesh S/o. Rambilas Soni,
Aged about 43 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Navin Pusad,
In front of Yashwant Stadium, Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Sandeep S/o. Babusing Rathod,
Aged about 51 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Bhopasing Naik Nagar, Shrirampur,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
6. Prashant S/o. Parmanand Gawande,
Aged about 37 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Durgamata Chowk, Digras,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
7. Narayan S/o. Arvindrao Maske,
Aged about 39 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Veni (Khurd), Post Harshi,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
2/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
8. Uday S/o Natthulal Jaiswal,
Aged about 38 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Near Pankaj Store, Shrirampur,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
9. Parvez S/o. Idris Khan,
Aged about 33 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Near Urdu Jr. College, Masjid Ward,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
10. Gopal S/o. Janusing Pawar,
Aged about 38 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. 38, Gandhi Nagar, Digras,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
11. Parvez S/o. Babullah Shah,
Aged about 38 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Shivaji Chowk, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
12. Govind S/o Baswant Nimgade,
Aged about 30 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Rajeshwar Colony, Greenpark-1, Shrirampur,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
13. Virendra S/o. Vinayak Khakre,
Aged about 41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Vasant Nagar, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
14. Vijay S/o Punjaram Jadhao,
Aged about 38 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Washim Road, Near Saw Mill,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
15. Sanket S/o Kishorrao Tagalpallewar,
Aged about 35 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Sawna, Tq. Mahagaon, Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal.
16. Gajanan S/o Gyanbarao Kale,
Aged about 36 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Parate Layout, Gandhi Nagar,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
3/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
17. Nitinkumar S/o Ratan Rathod,
Aged about 36 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Jaiswal Chawl, Nehru Ward,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
18. Sheshrao S/o Gangaram More,
Aged about 53 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Mahalaxmi Nagar, Kakaddati,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
19. Bhimashanka S/o. Mahadevappa Chakote,
Aged about 51 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Z.P. Colony, Shrirampur, Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal.
20. Vilas S/o. Tukaram Pawar,
Aged about 13 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Balaji Park, Post Kaudipur, Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal.
21. Shankar S/o. Chintaman Sanghai,
Aged about 54 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Near Z. P. School, Shrirampur,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
22. Umesh S/o. Devidas Shende,
Aged about 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Mahalaxmi Nagar, Kakaddati,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
23. Mahadev S/o Devba Mahajan,
Aged about 50 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Ward No.2, Tq. Lonar, Jambul,
Buldana - 443302.
24. Jaising S/o Vassram Ade,
Aged about 50 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Kakaddati, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
25. Salim S/o Aziz Khan,
Aged about 47 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
4/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
26. Vinod S/o Mukinda Dhole,
Aged about 32 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Mahalaxmi Nagar, Kakaddati,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
27. Swapnil S/o. Ganeshrao Chaudhari,
Aged about 33 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Post Bansi, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
28. Shrikant S/o V. Pulate,
Aged about 30 years, Occu.- Service,
R/o. Kakaddati, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
29. Pramod S/o. Pralhad Tagadpallawar,
Aged 61 years, Occ.: Retired,
R/o. Prabhau Niwas, Plot No.36,
Padiwal Layout, Asegaonkar Nagar,
Near Ganpati Mandir, Pusad,
Tah. Puasa, Distt. Yavatmal. --- PETITIONERS
--VERSUS--
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of
Higher & Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
3. Director of Technical Education,
Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No. 1967,
Opposite Metro Cinema, Mumbai-440001.
4. Director of Maharashtra
State Board of Technical Education,
49, Kherwadi, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.
5. Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Pusad, through its President
Jai Sudhakar Naik, Naik Bungalow,
Gandhinagar, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal 445204.
5/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
6. Joint Director of Technical Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati.
7. JSPM's Dr. N.P. Hirani Institute of
Polytechnic, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal,
through its Principal, Karla Road Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal 445215.
8. Jai Sudhakar Naik
Aged about 60 years, Occu.: President,
Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Naik Bungalow, Gandhinagar, Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal 445204.
9. T.N. Boob,
Aged about 55 years, Occu: Principal,
R/o Narayanleela, Shraddha Nagar,
Near Bharkate House.
10. State of Maharashtra,
through Department of Social Justice and
Special Assistance, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
11. Manohar S/o Rajusingh Naik,
Aged about 78 years, Occ : Agriculturist,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Naik Bunglow,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
12. Avinash @ Deepak S/o. Shriram Asegaonkar,
Aged about 63 yrs., Occ.: Business,
R/o. Hutkeshwar Ward, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
13. Shri. Vijay Deorao Patil,
Aged 70 year, Occ.: Retire,
R/o. Near Hindi High School, Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal.
14. Shri. Suresh M. Jadhav Patil,
Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Chichaghat, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
6/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
15. Anil Madhukarrao Naik,
Aged 62 year, Occ.: Agriculturist,
R/o. at Post Gahuli, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
16. Gowardhandash Kisanlal Soni,
Aged Major, Occ. : Not Know,
Members, J.S.P.M., Wardha,
R/o. Carla Road, Hero Showroom, Pusad.
17. Nooruddin S/o. Peerbhai Hirani,
Aged 80 years, Occ.: Retired,
R/o. Hirani Bunglow, Near Hindi High School,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
18. Nevin S/o. Badruddin Hirani,
Aged 65, Occ. Business,
R/o. Hirani Bunglow, Near Hindi High School,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. ---RESPONDENTS.
Mr. R. L. Khapre, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. R. G. Kavinandan, Advocate for
Petitioners.
Mr. D. P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1, 3 & 6.
Mr. N. P. Lambat, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. P. R. Puri, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5, 7 to 9.
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 14.08.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present petition is arising out of non-payment of salary
as per Pay Band fixed by the All India Council of Technical Education,
New Delhi, to the petitioners through respondent No.5 -Management
7/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
i.e. Janata Shikshan Mandal, Pusad, who run the respondent No.7 –
College i.e. Dr. N. P. Hirani Institute of Polytechnic Pusad. It is the
further plea of the petitioners to issue direction to the respondent No.5 –
Management to allow the petitioners to sign the muster roll.
3. The petitioners are the staff members of Dr. N.P. Hirani
Institute of Polytechnic, Pusad. It is their case, that one of the reasons of
low admission rate of the students in the college cannot justify the non-
payment of arrears of salary to the employees. The petitioners
contended that arrears of 25 months have not been made and remains
payable to them. It was further advanced that, several complaints were
made about the issue involved in the instant case to the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 through Joint Director of Technical Education, Amravati
Region, Amravati, who had conducted inquiry by appointing Committee.
4. The petitioners submitted that non-action on the part of the
respondents has made it very difficult for the petitioners to sustain their
livelihood. It is further disputed that, apparently the All India Council of
Technical Education, New Delhi, had issued directions to respondent
No.3 not to admit the students from academic year 2018-19 vide its
order dated 30.04.2018, which is of no help to the petitioners in the
matter of realization of their salary. It was further submitted by the
8/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
petitioners that even after a number of reminders/ultimatums given to
respondent Nos.7 to 9 about abstaining from work through
non-cooperation movement, they did not pay any heed. Therefore, they
withdrew the non-cooperation movement, because of which the
respondents did not allow the petitioners to sign the muster roll.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Khapre on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that, it is clear that the petitioners are still working
with respondent No.7 and are entitled to receive the salary in
accordance with 6th Pay Commission as per pay scale appended at
Annexure-2 on due date till decision of this petition. The learned Senior
Counsel highlighted that the staff member of same college one Pramod
Tagalpallewar was also not given the muster roll for signature since
01.07.2018. However, post filing of a complaint to the respondent No.3,
he was called by the Principal of the college on 13.08.2018 and was
asked to sign the muster roll for the period from 01.07.2018 to
13.08.2018 on the same day, resulting him to withdraw the earlier
complaint made.
6. It was further argued by the learned Senior Counsel that, it
is now well-settled that if public authority is undertaking a public
function such as imparting education like the respondent Institution,
9/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
though unaided, it is bound by the principle of equal pay for equal work,
if the service conditions of the employees of such aided and unaided
colleges are similar and as such said employees are entitled to get
benefits of pay commission applicable to the grant-in-aid as well as
unaided colleges.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent
Nos.5, 7 and 9, Mr. Kulkarni, vehemently opposed the arguments made
on behalf of the petitioners.
8. It is the contention of the learned Counsel on behalf of the
respondents that the petitioner Nos.1 to 20 have resorted to illegal strike
from January 2018. The petitioners worked only for the month of
February 2018 in respondent No.7 – Institute. Thereafter, from
01.03.2018 till 07.09.2018 the petitioners continued to be on illegal
strike and were not attending the Institute. Therefore, respondent Nos.5
and 7 had no alternative but to make ad-hoc appointments of teachers
so as to ensure the teaching in the Institute and to complete theory and
practical syllabus. In view of illegal strike resorted to by the petitioners,
none of the petitioners are entitled for the salary for the month of
January 2018 and salary from 01.03.2018 onwards. Principle of ‘no
work no pay’ is applicable in the present case. Similarly, in view of illegal
10/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
strike resorted to by the petitioners and in view of complete
irresponsible behaviour of the petitioners, no case is made out for
exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on
this count also.
9. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the
respondents Mr. Kulkarni, that respondent No.7 – Institute of
Polytechnic was established by respondent No.5 in the year 1984-85 on
permanent no grant basis. Even on the date of filing of the reply, i.e.
07.09.2018, the Institute was on permanent no grant basis and the only
source of income is, the fees to be received from the students. For the
students belonging to reserved categories, the Institute cannot claim fees
as the fees are to be reimbursed by the State Government.
10. It was further argued by the learned Counsel on behalf of
the respondent Nos.5, 7 and 9 that since 1984-85 till the year 2013-14
there was no problem about administration of the Institute and payment
of salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff. Even respondent No.4 –
Director, Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai had
made applicable pay-scales prescribed as per 6 th Pay Commission.
However, payment of Dearness Allowance as per Government rates was
11/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
never feasible. It is submitted that from the year 2014-15, the whole
working mechanism of the administration had become difficult in view
of drastic reduction in the strength of students. In view of reduction in
number of admissions, the income from fees was reduced considerably.
At the same time, every year, the liability of salary was increasing in
view of yearly increments of each staff member. Similarly, the expenses
of the Institute were also increasing. Additionally, the State Government
did not release scholarship amount (reimbursement of fees) and as such,
huge amount has remained outstanding against the State Government
i.e. 1.20 crores.
11. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
12. Issue in this petition is covered by the judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition No.8357/2021 [Mr. Bhimrao Pandurang Gaikwad
and Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) with other connected
matters decided on 22.05.2025. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners has stated that this issue is no more res integra and it is
covered by the judgment of this Court wherein this Court has observed
that the petitions are squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench
of this Court in the case of Hanumant Mahadev Bhosale and Ors. Vs. All
12/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
India Council for Technical Education reported in (2023) 6 Mh.L.J. 634
and prayed to allow the petition.
13. On perusal of the record, it appears that some of the
amount/arrears were paid by the respondent No.7 by depositing the
amount of Rs.37,41,215/-. For further amount, the respondent – Trust
has requested for permission to sale the property. The Court
Commissioner was appointed in said matter to verify the property of the
Trust and to submit report. The report is submitted during the pendency
of the petition. The petitions which were pending before the Principal
Seat were decided and the Court has relied on paragraphs mentioned in
the case of Hanumant Bhosale (supra) wherein, after referring to the
Government Resolution, MEPS Act and Rules, so also considering the
arguments held that, strict compliance of the provisions of the MEPS Act
and Rules and the amendment to Schedule ‘C’ is not necessary for
making the pay scales as recommended by the A.I.C.T.E. applicable to
the employees. The relevant observations in paragraph Nos.37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 thereof are useful, which read as
under :
“37. We now turn to the question as to whether strict
compliance with the provisions of sections 16 & 4 of the
MEPS Act and Rule 7 of MEPS Rules and the amendment to
Schedule “C” is necessary for making the pay scales
recommended by the AICTE applicable to the employees
13/23 wp.4233.18-J.odtgoverned by MEPS Act and MEPS Rules C and the
parameters of section 4(3) of the MEPS Act.
38. The combined effect of the three, the two legislations
and executive instructions regarding pay scales in Technical
Schools is as follows. The MEPS Rules are enacted in the
exercise of the powers conferred under sections 16(1) and
(2) of the MEPS Act. Rule 7 of the MEPS Rules deals with
scales and pay allowances and provides that pay for full-
time as well as Part Time Heads, Assistant Heads,
Supervisors, Teachers, and non-teaching staff in primary
schools, secondary schools, night schools, and junior
colleges would be prescribed as per Schedule-C to the
MEPS Rules. Schedule C has been referred to earlier. The
AICTE Act, the Regulations and the orders apply to
Technical Schools and also the pay-scales.
39. The Respondent- Technical Schools contend that the
Government Resolution cannot be issued under Article 162
of the Constitution of India to fill or encroach upon the said
field and when an Act and/or subordinate legislation like
Rules contemplates that a particular thing should be done
in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that
manner only and not in another manner at all. The field
relating to providing the pay scale payable to the teachers
and non-teaching staff in the school and, more particularly,
the Engineering / Polytechnic institution is the field
occupied by the provisions of section 16 of the MEPS Act
and the subordinate legislation, namely Rule 7(1) and
Schedule ‘C’ of the MEPS Rules, we do not find merit in this
contention. There is legislative history to this issue. Until
1990, when section 2(24) of the MEPS Act defining ‘school’
was amended, the Technical Schools were not referred to in
section 2(24) of the MEPS Act, and an amendment was
brought in vide The Maharashtra Act XXXII of 1990. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of The Maharashtra Act
XXXII of 1990 for amending the Act of 1977 has been
14/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
reproduced by the Full Bench in Anil Dattatraya Ade Vs.
Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati Region,
Amravati – 2003(3) Bom.C.R. 465. It reads thus:
“The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is
enacted to regulate recruitment and conditions of
service of employees in certain private schools. The
expression “school”, as defined in section 2(24)
meant a primary school, secondary school, or higher
secondary school or any part of any such school, a
junior college of education, or any other institution
or part thereof which imparts education or training
below the degree level including any institution
which imparts technical or vocational education. In
Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1984 (Shri P.D.
Prabhudesai Vs. The Principal, M.T.E. Society’s
Walchand College of Engineering, Vishrambaug at
Sangli), it was contended that polytechnic, an
institute which imparts technical education upto a
diploma level is not covered within the definition of
the expression “school” and therefore the School
Tribunal constituted under the Act had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by a
teacher of a polytechnic. The Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court had upheld this contention and
observed that by merely interpretative process, it
was not possible for the court to confer jurisdiction
upon the School Tribunal, where it had none under
the Act. Government therefore, considered it
expedient to amend the definition of the expression
“school” so as to cover all technical and non-
technical schools, junior colleges and institutes
which impart general, technical, vocational, art or,
as the case may be, special education or training in
any faculty or discipline or subject below the degree
level. Opportunity was also taken to amend certain
15/23 wp.4233.18-J.odtother definitions or sections of the Act, which were
found necessary or were consequential or incidental.
The Act seeks further to amend the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977, to achieve the
abovementioned objectives.”
Accordingly, Maharashtra Act XXXII of 1990 was passed by
the Legislature. Clauses (21), (24) and (25) of section 2
were substituted by the 1990 Amendment. Other
amendments were also made. The reference to overcome
the situation indicated by a judicial pronouncement that the
School Tribunal constituted under the Act had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by a teacher of
a polytechnic which imparts technical education up to a
diploma level is not covered within the definition of the
expression “school”, is pertinent.
40. After the amendment of 1990, the State, however,
did not find it necessary to correspondingly amend
Schedule C because the AICTE had already prescribed the
pay scales in respect of the employees in the Technical
Schools. There is no debate that the academic and
administrative matters of Technical Schools norms are
prescribed by the AICTE. The Technical Schools have to
function as per the AICTE norms. These norms include the
requirement of payment of salaries and pay scales to the
employees of the Technical Schools. The AICTE Act
prescribes pay scales and other service conditions of
teaching and nonteaching staff in Technical Schools and
other technical institutions. This position is not in dispute.
41. The AICTE forwarded the recommendations inter
alia on 20 September 1989, pertaining to the revision of the
pay scale. The State Government, by virtue of Government
Resolution dated 26 May 1992 and others had called upon
the Technical Schools to implement the revised pay scale as
recommended by AICTE with effect from 1 January 1986.
16/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
The pay scale was further revised from time to time by
adopting the aforesaid mechanism, to provide for the pay
scale commensurate with recommendations of various Pay
Commissions.
42. The M.E.P.S. Act and Rules regulate the recruitment
and the conditions of service of the employees in private
schools. Schedule ‘C’ of M.E.P.S. Rules prescribes the pay
scale payable to the teachers. The said Rules are framed by
the State Government pursuant to its powers under section
4 of the M.E.P.S. Act. Even though the Technical Schools
were included in the definition of School under section
2(24) under MEPS Act, they have not lost their distinctive
character as regards the pay scales which are prescribed by
the AICTE. The State Government advisedly did not feel it
necessary to amend Schedule-C because the pay scales for
the Technical Schools, which were brought into the
definition of section 2(24), were already prescribed by
AICTE.
43. The Division Bench in the reference order has
referred to the Circular/order issued by the AICTE on 30
December 1999, more particularly Clauses 2.3 and 16.1
thereof. Clauses 2.3 and 16.1 read thus:
“2.3 State Government Institutions and Private
Aided Institutions. – Taking into account the local
conditions, a State Government may implement the
revised payscales from a date later than January 1,
1996 and/or implement pay-scales other than those
given in this notification, but which are not higher
than the pay-scales given in Tables. (Appendix A – 1,
2 and 3). In such cases, the details of the
modification proposed either to the scales of pay or
the date from which the scheme is to be
implemented, should be furnished to the All India
Council for Technical Education for its approval.
17/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt 16.1 General
(a) The implementation of the revised scales will be
subject to the acceptance of all the conditions
mentioned in the scheme including revised
qualifications and recruitment procedures as well as
of the other terms and conditions issued by the
AICTE in this behalf.
(b) The State Government/Institutions are required
to amend their Statutes, Memorandum of
Association, Rules/Schemes Regulations, Bye-Laws,
as the case may be, in line with the scheme
forthwith.
(c) Anomalies, if any, in the implementation of the
scheme may be brought to the notice of Directorate
of Technical Education of respective State
Governments for clarification. A Standing
Committee will be constituted by Directorates of
Technical Education of respective State Government
for dealing with anomalies which may arise from
time to time during implementation of the scheme
of Revision of Pay Scale.
(d) The State Governments, after taking local
condition into consideration, may also decide in
their discretion to introduce scales of pay different
from those mentioned in the Scheme, and may give
effect to the revised scales of pay from January 1,
1996 or a later date. In such cases, the details of the
modification proposed either to the scales or pay or
the date from which the scheme is to be
implemented, should be furnished to the AICTE.
This Notification dated 30 December 1999 was
addressed to all Secretaries dealing with Technical
18/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
Institutions of all State Governments and Union
Territories. The recommendations were circulated to
all the States by the Member Secretary of AICTE to
the following covering communication. Under
Clause 2.2, it was stated that the revised pay scales,
career advanced scheme and incentives for higher
qualification given in the notification would be
effective from 1 January, 1996. Under Clause 2.3, it
was stated that the State Government taking into
account the local conditions may implement the
revised pay scales from a date later than 1 January,
1996 and implement the pay scales other than those
given in this notification, but not higher than the
pay scales given in the tables. The pay scales were
referred to Clause 4 which in turn appended to
Appendix A-1 and 2. Further details regarding
qualifications, recruitment, incentives for higher
qualification, career advancement, counting of
qualifying service for career advancement, teaching
days, workload, effective date fitment formula and
allowances were provided.
44. Clause 16.1 of the Circular dated 30 December 1999
are general guidelines as its title would suggest. Sub-clause
(b) of Clause 16.1 states that the State Governments/
Institutions are required to amend their Statutes.
Memorandum of Association, Rules/ Schemes, Regulations,
Bye-Laws, as the case may be, in line with the Scheme.
Clause 16.1(d) specified State Governments, after
considering local conditions, may also decide, at their
discretion, to introduce scales of pay different from those
mentioned in the scheme and may give effect to the revised
scales of pay from 1 January 1996 or a later date. In such
cases, the details of the proposed modification, either to the
pay scales or the date from which the scheme is to be
implemented, should be furnished to the AICTE. Clause 2.3
called upon the State Governments to direct
19/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
implementation of this Circular/order. Clause 16.1(b)
suggests that if there is any conflict in existing rules, bylaws
and regulations, the same should be amended to align with
this Scheme. From this, a principle cannot be deduced that
the State is denuded of its powers to call upon the Technical
institutes to implement the AICTE prescribed pay scales.
45. The legislative relations between the Union and the
States are covered in Part XI of the Constitution of India in
Articles 245 and 246, provide that the Parliament is
empowered to make laws for the whole or any part of the
territory of India with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (“Union List”),
notwithstanding anything in Clauses (2) and (3) of Article
246 and the Parliament is empowered to make laws with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the
Seventh Schedule (“Concurrent List”), notwithstanding
anything in Clause (3) of Article 246. The Parliament has
enacted the AICTE Act in the exercise of its legislative
power under Articles 246(1) and (2) read with Entry 66 of
List I (Union List) and Entry 25 of List III (State List). The
MEPS Act has been enacted in relation to the subject
mentioned in Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List), viz.
“Education, including technical education, medical
education and universities subject to the provisions of
Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I, vocational and technical
training of labour. It needs to be noted that AICTE is the
nodal agency of technical education and the Director of
Technical Education, the State, is responsible for technical
education at the State level. Therefore, there has to be
coordination between the two bodies and seamless
implementation of AICTE recommendations; these norms
are binding on the Technical Schools.
46. In reply affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 1860 of
2005 by the Joint Director of Technical Education, State of
Maharashtra, the State has supported the stand of the
20/23 wp.4233.18-J.odtpetitioner that the Government has issued direction to
implement the recommendation of 5th pay commission to
the teaching staff of non-aided Technical Schools. However,
it is stated that no financial assistance would be provided.
The learned Advocate General asserts that the State has
exercised its power under Article 162 of the Constitution of
India in furtherance of the AICTE notification dated 30
December 1999 and has issued the Government Resolution.
The record does not indicate that AICTE has taken any
objection to the course of action adapted by the State. It is a
matter of record in these petitions that there is a no
challenge by the Technical school to the Government
resolutions issued by the State of Maharashtra. This
challenge as far as Technical Schools are concerned, it has
been concluded in Teachers Association. Thereafter there is
no decision by this Court regarding technical School taking
any view to the contrary.
47. Thus, the State Government has issued the
Government Resolutions for the implementation of the
AICTE scheme emanating from the Regulations framed by
virtue of section 23 of the AICTE Act, 1987, providing for
revision of the pay scale of employees of the non-
government unaided Polytechnic Institutes, without
effecting amendment in Schedule ‘C’ of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service)
Regulation Rules, 1981. The A.I.C.T.E. has made
recommendations regarding the qualification and pay scales
for teachers under Higher and Technical Education. The
A.I.C.T.E. has prescribed the pay scales. In the exercise of its
power, the Council had framed the norms and standards for
Technical Schools. including norms/guidelines of the pay
scales payable to the teachers, qualifications and service
conditions for teachers and other academic staff, which is to
be implemented by the State Government. The
Government, in fact, has accepted the recommendations
issued by A.I.C.T.E. As the State has exercised the power
21/23 wp.4233.18-J.odtunder Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Here the
dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of (Secretary
Mahatma Gandhi Mission & Another Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar
Sena & Others), Civil Appeal No.115-116/2017 decided on
5 January, 2017, 2017 DGLS(SC) 25 : 2017(4) S.C.C. 449
needs to be noted. It was observed thus:
“69. While the GR dated 12.8.2009 is specific in its
declaration that the elaborate Rules contained
therein dealing with the pay scales of the various
cadres of the teaching staff of the educational
institutions mentioned therein, it does not make any
distinction between aided and un-aided colleges.
However, the GR does not purport to be one made
in exercise of the power under section 8(3) of the
Universities Act. It is agreed on all hands at the Bar
that the expression “Government Resolution” in the
Maharashtra Administrative jargon means a decision
taken either in exercise of the authority of the State
under Article 162 of the Constitution of India or in
exercise of the authority under some statutory
provision. No doubt the GR does not refer to the
source which authorises the exercise of the power
for revising the pay scales of the teaching staff of the
various educational institutions mentioned therein.
The mere absence of the recital of the source of
power in our opinion cannot determine the legal
status of the instrument or deprive the instrument of
its efficacy.
70. The difference between the authority of the
State flowing from Article 162 of the Constitution or
section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Universities Act is
two-fold. Firstly, the statutory authority under
section 8(3) could be abrogated anytime by the
legislature while the constitutional authority under
Article 162 cannot be abrogated by the State
22/23 wp.4233.18-J.odtLegislature. Secondly, the procedural requirements
for the exercise of the power vary depending upon
the nature of the source of the power, but the
existence of power itself cannot be doubted.
71. In our opinion, the GR dated 12.8.2009 can be
safely construed to be one made in exercise of the
power under section 8(3) of the Universities Act
conferring a legal right on the teaching staff of the
affiliated colleges irrespective of the fact whether
they are aided or not. 72. The colleges run by the
appellants are admittedly colleges affiliated to the
Universities functioning under the Act. Therefore,
their teaching staff would be entitled to the revised
pay scales in terms of the G.R. dated 12.08.2009.
73. Coming to the non-teaching staff working in the
colleges run by the appellant, the Rules of 2009
purport to be the rules revising the pay-scales of the
non-teaching staff of only the affiliated aided
colleges. Therefore, textually the colleges
administered by the appellants are not governed by
the rules.
However, the question whether such Rules are sustainable
in view of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India that “The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India” is required to be examined. If the
answer to the question is in the negative, the further
question would be the legal remedy available to the
aggrieved person/s.”
14. As per this judgment, the principle of equal pay for equal
work is applicable in the present matter. From the record, we find no
23/23 wp.4233.18-J.odt
justification for the respondent – Management to refuse to obey and
implement the Government Resolution relied by the petitioners.
15. In view of the above, we find that the petitioners are
entitled to receive the payment of their salary as per the
recommendations of the Pay Commission. The petition is therefore
allowed and we pass the following order :
I] The Writ Petition is allowed.
II] The petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the payment
of their salaries with reference to the recommendations of
the 6th and 7th Pay Commission.
III] The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits to the
petitioners as per their entitlement in terms of
recommendation of the Pay Commission and to Act in
terms of the Government Resolution within a period of
three months from the date of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
Pending interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/08/2025 20:57:03
[ad_1]
Source link