Bombay High Court
Vidya Prasarak Mandals Art And ... vs The Registrar, The University Of ... on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
Pallavi 1-rpwst-30184-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.30184 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11795 OF 2022
Vidya Prasarak Mandal Art and Commerce ... Petitioners
Thr. Its Secretary
Versus
The Registrar, University of Mumbai and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.30162 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8338 OF 2015
Vidya Prasarak Mandal Art and Commerce ... Petitioners
Thr. Its Secretary Mr. D.J. Karan
Versus
The Registrar, University of Mumbai and Ors. ... Respondents
-------------------
Mr. Ram S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for the
Petitioners/Applicant.
Mr. R.C. Sadasivan, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for the Respondent No.1 (University of Mumbai).
---------------------
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. &
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 20th MARCH 2023
P.C. :
1. The present Review Petitions are filed seeking review of the
order dated 24th August 2022 in Writ Petition No.8338 of 2015 and
Writ Petition No.11795 of 2022.
1 of 4
Pallavi 1-rpwst-30184-2022.doc
2. Under the said order, we had directed the present Review
Petitioners to pay salary as per the applicable pay scale from the date
of the Petition i.e. from 1st August 2015.
3. Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners
submits that at the time when the Writ Petitions were decided, the
Review Petitioners could not place on record the audit report and other
material to demonstrate that the financial condition of the Review
Petitioners is not good. The College is situated in Tribal area. The
students are also Tribals. Fees cannot be collected from the Tribals. The
Art stream is completely unaided. According to the learned Senior
Advocate, it is not feasible and financially possible for the Review
Petitioners to pay the salary as per the applicable pay scales.
4. We have also heard learned Advocates for the
Respondents/Original Review Petitioners.
5. When the Writ Petitions were pending, a co-ordinate bench,
on 14th February 2022 passed an order directing the Petitioners to pay
the Respondents (original Review Petitioners) as per the directions
issued by the Registrar of the University and the Grievance Committee
of the University. The said amount is not paid. In spite of that, we have
2 of 4
Pallavi 1-rpwst-30184-2022.doc
heard the Senior Advocate representing the Review Petitioners on
merits.
6. We asked Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate to show us
any Circular, Government Resolution and/or Judgment wherein the
payment as per 6th Pay Commission to the existing employees need not
be made. Mr. Apte, Senior Advocate fairly states that he cannot point
out any Circular, Government Resolution and/or Judgment.
7. We have considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the
matter of MGM Vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena1, while passing order under
Review. The Apex Court, in the said case held that the unaided
affiliated institution also has to pay salary as per the pay scale. No
distinction is made between the employees of aided affiliated colleges
and non- aided affiliated colleges.
8. Considering the stand of the Review Petitioners and weak
financial condition, we had directed that payment be made to the
original Writ Petitioners as per the applicable pay scales from the date
of the filing of the Writ Petitions, though the order could have been
passed for making payment from the date the 6 th Pay Commission was
made applicable.
1 (2017) 4 SCC 449
3 of 4
Pallavi 1-rpwst-30184-2022.doc
9. Be that as it may, no ground for review is made out. Review
Petitions are dismissed.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ.)
4 of 4
