Bombay High Court
Colony vs 7 The Principal on 3 December, 2013
Bench: R.M. Borde, A.I.S. Cheema
{1}
wp149612.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1496 OF 2012
Wamanrao Gangaram Jagtap,
age: 66 years, Occ: Retired-
Pensioner, R/o No.1, Navyug
Colony, Bhavsingpura,
Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versus
1 Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Aurangabad, through its
Registrar.
2 The Director of College and
University Development Board,
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Aurangabad.
3 Joint Director
(Higher Education),
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4 Divisional Joint Director
(Higher Education),
Aurangabad.
5 State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
6 Peoples Education Society,
Mumbai, through its
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:03 :::
{2}
wp149612.odt
Chairman,
"Anand Bhavan",
C/o Siddarth College,
Dadabhai Nauroji Road,
Fort, Mumbai-400 021.
7 The Principal,
Milind College of Science,
Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr.R.J.Godbole, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.P.Phatake, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.M.M.Ambhore, advocate for Respondents No.6 & 7.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A.I.S.CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 03rd December, 2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 The petitioner, who is a retired employee of Respondent
No.7-Institution, is seeking enforcement of the decision passed by
the Grievance Committee on 20.08.2010, which has been approved
by the Management Council vide its decision dated 16.03.2011, as
communicated vide letter dated 7th April, 2011, issued by the
Registrar of the University.
{3}
wp149612.odt
3 The Grievance Committee has issued direction to the
Management to consider services rendered by the petitioner from
03.07.1972 to 01.07.1977 as full time service; and it has further
directed to submit necessary proposal to the concerned authority.
The decision taken by the Grievance Committee was placed before
the Management Council of the University and said decision came
to be approved on 16.03.2011.
4 The petitioner makes a grievance that Respondent-
Institution has not acted in pursuance to the decision rendered by
the Grievance Committee and that the proposal for extending
monetary benefits in pursuance to the decision of the Grievance
Committee has not been forwarded to the Joint Director, Higher
Education. As a result of failure on the part of Respondent-
Institution to tender proposal to the Joint Director, Higher
Education, petitioner is deprived of the monetary benefits, such as
revised pension, gratuity and other post-retiral benefits. In this
view of the matter, according to the petitioner, Respondent-
Institution needs to be directed to forward proposal to the Joint
Director and the Joint Director, in turn, needs to be directed to
consider such proposal and take appropriate decision.
5 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.6 & 7,
placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala & others Vs. Shivaji
{4}
wp149612.odt
Bhagwat More & others, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 99, contends
that the decision of the Grievance Committee is not enforceable
and writ, seeking enforcement of the said order, need not be
entertained.
6 In the above cited matter before the Apex Court,
direction was sought by a Shikshan Sevak to enforce the decision
rendered by the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under
the scheme formulated by the Government on 27.04.2000. The
Grievance Redressal Committee is merely a mechanism to hear
grievances of Shikshan Sevaks and give its recommendation to the
Education Department for facilitating the Department to take
appropriate action. The Grievance Committee, constituted under
the Shikshan Sevak Scheme is not intended to be a quasi judicial
forum as is evident from the following:
(a) The Committee is constituted only to consider
the grievances of the Shikshan Sevaks by giving them
an opportunity of putting forth their grievances.
(b) The Scheme does not contemplate issue of notice
to the employer, nor hearing both parties, nor
rendering any adjudicatory decision.
(c) The Committee is a departmental committee
{5}
wp149612.odt
with only the officers concerned as members.
7 The objection taken to the decision directing
enforcement of the order passed by the Grievance Committee
constituted under the Shikshan Sevak Scheme was accepted by the
Supreme Court and in paragraphs no.30, 31 & 32 of the judgment,
it is observed thus:
"30 Therefore, we hold that constitution of a
Grievance Committee as a public adjudicatory
forum, whose decisions are binding on the
parties to the disputes, by an executive order of
the Government is impermissible. Secondly,
the High Court cannot in exercise of judicial
power interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil
courts vested under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Any such Grievance Committee created by an
executive order, either on the direction of the
High Court or otherwise, can only be fact-
finding bodies or recommending bodies which
can look into the grievances and make
appropriate recommendations to the
Government or its authorities, for taking
necessary actions or appropriate reports to
enable judicial tribunals to render decisions.
31 The Grievance Committee cannot be a
public quasi-judicial forum nor can its
decisions be made final and binding on the
parties, in disputes relating to Shikshan
Sevaks. Therefore, it has to be held that any
order or opinion of the Grievance Committee on
a complaint or grievance submitted by a
{6}
wp149612.odt
Shikshan Sevak were only recommendations to
the State Government (Education Department)
for taking further action and nothing more.
32 Even assuming that the committees
constituted under the Shikshan Sevaks Scheme
were quasi-judicial tribunals, they cannot direct
reinstatement nor direct that the employees are
deemed to continue in service by declaring the
termination to be bad. It is well settled that the
courts would not direct reinstatement of service
nor grant a declaration that a contract of
personnel service subsists and that the
employee even after removal is deemed to be in
service. [See S. Dutt v. University of Delhi] The
three recognised exceptions to the said rule are:
(i) where a public servant having the protection
of Article 311 of the Constitution is dismissed
from service is in contravention of the provision;
(ii) where a dismissed workman seeks
reinstatement before Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts under the industrial
law; and (iii) where a statutory body acts in
breach or violation of the mandatory obligation
imposed by a statute. (See Vaish Degree College
v. Lakshmi Narain). The direction of the High
Court in its order dated 5.8.2008 that when the
Grievance Committee holds that the
termination is bad, the Shikshan Sevak is
deemed to continue on the rolls of the
management is therefore erroneous and liable
to be set aside."
8 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends
that facts of the instant matter are distinguishable from the facts
leading to the decision in the reported matter and as such, ratio
{7}
wp149612.odt
laid down by the Supreme Court, in the reported matter, has no
applicability to the instant case. It is contended that the Grievance
Committee, to hear and settle grievances of the teachers and other
employees of the Universities and recognised Institutions, is
constituted in accordance with Section 57 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994. Section 57 of the Act reads as under:
57(1) There shall be a grievances committee in
each university to deal with the grievances of
teachers and other employees of the university,
colleges, institutions and recognised
institutions and to hear and settle grievances as
far as may be practicable within six months,
and the committee shall make a report to the
Management Council.
(2) It shall be lawful for the grievances
committee to entertain and consider grievances
or complaints which are not within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal and report to the
Management Council to take such action as it
deems fit and the decisions of the Management
Council on such reports shall be final.
(3) The Grievances Committee shall consist
of the following members, namely:-
(a) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor, where there is
no Pro-Vice Chancellor, a member of the
Management Council nominated by the
Management Council ... Chairman;
{8}
wp149612.odt
(b) [Two] members of the Management
Council nominated by the Management Council
from amongst themselves [one of them
belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes or De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis)/Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward
Classes, by rotation ................... Members;
(ba) two members of the Senate nominated by
the members of the Senate, from amongst
themselves, one of them being the woman
representative of the management and one shall
be a teacher;
ig ....Members
(bb) two members nominated by the members
of Academic Council from amongst themselves,
one of them being the principal and one shall
be a teacher. ....Members
(c) The Registrar ........Member Secretary
9 It is contended by the petitioner that the Grievance
Committee constituted under Section 57 is a creation of statute
and is not created by an executive order of the Government as in
case of a Grievance Committee under the Shikshan Sevak Scheme.
The decision rendered by the Grievance Committee under Section
57 shall have to be reported to the Management Council so as to
facilitate the Management Council to take such action as it deems
fit and the decision of the Managment Council, on such report, has
been given finality. The recommendation made by the Grievance
Committee under Section 57 and subsequent action in pursuance
{9}
wp149612.odt
to such report by the Management Council; and finality of the
decision of the Management Council on such report, is statutorily
prescribed in Section 57, as contradicted from the decision of the
Grievance Committee under the Shikshan Sevak Scheme, which is
established under an executive order. In the instant matter, the
report/decision of the Grievance Committee was placed before the
Management Council and the Management Council has approved
same and has directed the Institution to comply with the
directions/report of the Grievance Committee. It is obligatory on
the part of the Respondent-Institution to comply with the
directions issued by the Management Council in pursuance to the
report tendered by the Grievance Committee. In the event of non
observance of the directives issued by the Management Council,
necessary consequences provided under the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994, shall follow.
10 Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-
Institution, informs that Respondent-Institution would forward
necessary proposal, in accordance with the report/decision of the
Grievance Committee, which has been confirmed by the
Management Council, to the Joint Director, Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune, within a period of eight weeks from
today.
11 In this view of the matter, it is directed to Respondent
{10}
wp149612.odt
No.3-Joint Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune,
to issue necessary orders expeditiously, on receipt of the proposal
from Respondent No.7. The monetary benefits receivable by the
petitioner shall be disbursed as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt
of the proposal by the Joint Director from Respondent No.7-
Institution.
12 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no
order as to costs.
A.I.S.CHEEMA R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp149612
