Bombay High Court
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Through Its Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:5975-DB
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.14395 OF 2019
1) Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
Through its working President
Shri. Ashok Devisingh Pawar,
Age 48 years, Occu. Retired,
R/o New Hanuman Nagar,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2) Murlidhar s/o Narayanrao Sase,
Age: 7 year, Occ: Service as Laboratory Assistant,
And Unit President Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
Having its Unit at J.N.E.C. College, Aurangabad,
R/o Plot No.112, Galli No.2, New Hanuman Nagar,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) Joint Director of Technical Education,
Near Govt. Polytechnic Tech, College
Osmanpura, Post Box No. 516,
Aurangabad, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Regional Officer,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Industrial Assurance Building,
IInd Floor, V.N. Road, Church Gate,
Mumbai-400020.
4) The Chairman,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 057.
5) The Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
University Campus, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(2)
6) The Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University
Vidya Vihar, Lonere, Raigad,
Tq. & Dist. Raigad- 402 103.
7) The Secretary,
Mahatma Gandhi Mission,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
8) The Principal,
Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
9) The MGM University
N-6, CIDCO, Baijiplira, Aurangabad 431003
Through its Registrar.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2912 OF 2024
1. Dr. Parminder Kaur Harbhajansingh Birdi
Age: 47 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Dr. Vijaya Bhaskarrao Musande,
Age: 52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Vidya Niketan Colony, Aurangabad.
3. Dr. Sadanand Ghuhe,
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: N-2, Cidco, Aurangabad.
4. Mrimal Ganpatrao Kashid,
Age: 47 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Sukhdev, J-43, Vijayshree Colony,
N-5, Cidco, Aurangabad.
5. Madhuri Bhaskarrao Kawarkhe,
Age: 35 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Flat No. 302, B-1, Disha Silver Woods,
Harsul T-Point, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(3)
6. Sunil Balkrishna Patil,
Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Plot No. 16, Shreenagar Colony,
N-5, Sector-F, Cidco, Aurangabad.
7. Arun N. Bore,
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: AH1/20, N-2, Cidco, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad-431 003.
8. Reshma Ratnakar Kulkarni,
Age: 33 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Plot No. 12, "Alakrajna",
Shraddha Colony, N-2, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
9. Sachin Bhagwanrao Shelke,
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: New Baijipura, Indira Nagar,
Aurangabad.
10. Madhura Rajendra Kulkarni,
Age: 31 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Plot No. 404-B, Sector-C, N-1, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
11. Pankaj Ganeshrao Dhoble,
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: K-10, Flat No. 1/1, Gulmohar Colony,
N-5, Cidco, Aurangabad.
12. Mohammad Nizar Bargir,
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Saltanat Bungalow, Gut No. 99,
Plot No. 4, Satara Parisar, Aurangabad.
13. Vishal Vijay Ghatge,
Age: 29 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Sadyadri Nagar, Plot No. 7, Sai Prasad,
Pundlik Nagar Road, Aurangabad.
14. Akash Pralhad Barote,
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: N-11, Plot NO. 47/7,
Mayur Nagar,
Hudco, Aurangabad.
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(4)
15. Rakhee Kulkarni, Age: 44 years,
Occu.: Servcie, R/o: "Surbhi Jyoti Nagar,
Aurangabad.
16. Madhura Atul Pujari,
Age: 33 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: CIDCO N-9, Ranjanwan Society,
Aurangabad.
17. Niharika Kapoor,
Age: 28 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: 'Pride Pheonix', Chikalthana,
Aurangabad.
18. Medha Naik,
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Vivekanand Nagar, N-4, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
19. Dr. Sharvari Chandrashekhar Tamane,
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: 43/5, Renuka, Aditya Nagar,
Garkheda, Aurangabad.
20. Saranga Sahebrao Nawal,
Age: 45 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Uttaranagar, Chikalthana,
Aurangabad.
21. Suddhashul Ghosh,
Age: 49 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Vidyanagar, Aurangabad.
22. Syed Ahmed Naveed,
Age: 47 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Labour Colony,
Aurangabad.
23. Dr. Sunil Nilkant Pawar,
Age: 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: 14, Krishnai, Dwarkadas Nagar, Beed By
Pass, Satara, Aurangabad.
24. Ramprakash Jijaji Shinde,
Age: 45 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: 101, A-3, My World Apartment,
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(5)
Chikalthana, Auarangabad.
25. Vilas Shankarrao Kumawat,
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Laxmitara Niwas, Tirupati Colony,
Saibhawani Nagar, New Cidco,
Aurangabad.
26. Shivraj Kisanrao Kadam,
Age: 29 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: At. Post Limbgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
27. Revati Shivdas Zare,
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: 221, Ashiyad Colony, Near Guru Lawns,
Balapur, Beed By Pass, Aurangabad.
28. Manish K. Tarte
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: P-19, Deep Nagar Housing Society,
Shahanoorwadi, Aurangabad.
29. Aban A Kadam,
Age: 31 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad.
30. Ajay Kailasrao Bhamble,
Age: 26 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Sairaj Nagar, Beed By Pass,
Aurangabad.
31. Nagorao Sheshrao Kadam,
Age: 34 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad.
32. Rohini Shirang Patil,
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Sutgirni Chowk, Garkheda,
Aurangabad.
33. Sakharam Bajirao Harkal,
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Plot No. 38, Mirajgave Vishwa,
Near Water Tank, Rameshwar Nagar, Deolali,
Aurangabad.
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(6)
34. Balaji Uttamrao Pawar,
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Plot No. 19, Gut No. 131,
Vyankatesh Nagar, Pisadevi Road, Jadhavwadi,
Aurangabad.
35. Kishor Kailas Mate,
Age: 27 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad ..Applicants/Intervenors
Versus
1. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
Through its working President
Shri. Ashok Devisingh Pawar,
Age 48 years, Occu. Retired,
R/o New Hanuman Nagar,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Murlidhar s/o Narayanrao Sase,
Age: 7 year, Occ: Service as Laboratory Assistant,
And Unit President Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
Having its Unit at J.N.E.C. College, Aurangabad,
R/o Plot No.112, Galli No.2, New Hanuman Nagar,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4. Joint Director of Technical Education,
Near Govt. Polytechnic Tech, College
Osmanpura, Post Box No. 516,
Aurangabad, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.
5. The Regional Officer,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Industrial Assurance Building,
IInd Floor, V.N. Road, Church Gate,
Mumbai-400020.
6. The Chairman,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg,
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(7)
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 057.
7. The Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
University Campus, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
8. The Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University
Vidya Vihar, Lonere, Raigad,
Tq. & Dist. Raigad- 402 103.
9. The Secretary,
Mahatma Gandhi Mission,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
10. The Principal,
Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
11. The MGM University
Town Centre CIDCO,
Aurangabad 431003
Through its Registrar. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13897 OF 2018
1. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
Through its Unit Chairman
Shri Uttam Kisanrao Athawale,
Age 50 years, Occupation Service
as Security Guard on the establishment of
Mahatma Gandhi Mission's College of Engineering
Nanded, R/o Samata Nagar,
Near Pawdewadi Naka, Nanded
Tq. and Dist.Nanded
2. Dr. Deepak s/o Vijayrao Pattewar,
Age 52 years, Occupation Service
as Professor on the establishment of
Mahatma Gandhi Mission's College of Engineering
Nanded, R/o Vardan, Tilak Nagar,
Near Nehru English School,
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(8)
Tq. and Dist.Nanded
3. Kasim S/o Rasulsab Sayed,
Age 52 years, Occu. Service,
R/o House No.1-15-1401,
Nandigram Colony, Sharda Nagar Road,
Nanded-5, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
4. Ravindrakumar s/o Kishtaiah Lakka,
Age 57 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Laxmi Nagar,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Nanded
Tq. and Dist.Nanded
5. Gurmeetsingh s/o Genda Singh Bhosiwale,
Age 50 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Near Gurudwara Gate No.2, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist.Nanded.
6. Devidas s/o Ramrao Panchal
Age 53 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Sriram Nagar, Behind Ujjwal Service center,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
7. Vivekanand s/o Ramdasrao Metkewar,
Age 36 years, Occu. Service,
R/o H.No.1-20-589, Datta Nagar,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
8. Ajay s/o Anil Unhale,
Age 33 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Triveni Nagar,
Near Chaitanya Nagar, Nanded
Tq. & Dist.Nanded
9. Vishwambhar s/o Rameshrao Sarsar,
Age 30 years, Occu. Service,
R/o H.No.5-4-18, Narsingh Galli,
Sarafa, Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded
10. Atul s/o Ashokrao Mane,
Age 30 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Wasim Road,
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yeotmal
11. Kiran s/o Prakash Popale,
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(9)
Age 28 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Plot No.75, Ashtavinayak Nagar,
Tarada, Nanded, Tq. & Dist.Nanded
12. Pandurang s/o Parshuram Vadje,
Age 29 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Flat No.201, Wing A,
Usha Residency, Chikhalwadi Corner,
Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded
13. Prashant s/o Madhukarrao Painkar,
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Venkateshwara Nagar,
Near Kabra Nagar, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
14. Shripad s/o Subhashrao Deulkar,
Age 39 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Deep Nagar, Purna Road,
Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded
15. Shaikh Mubeen Hussain,
Age 41 years, occu. Service,
R/o H.No. 1-15-940, Near Masjid,
Taj Nagar, Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded
16. Sachinkumar s/o Prabhakar Bandewar,
Age 38 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Sanket Nagar, Taroda, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
17. Ravikant s/o Madhavrao Ambulgekar,
Age 41 years, Occu. Service,
Flat No.302, Sanman Pride,
Borban, Vazirabad, Nanded
Tq. & Dist.Nanded
18. Anil s/o Bhagwanrao Waghmare,
Age 34 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Near Airport, Hingoli Road, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
19. (Deleted)
20. Deepali Chandrakant Pohare,
Age 35 years, Occu. Service,
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(10)
R/o Bank Colony, Waman Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist.Nanded
21. Mahesh s/o Ramaswamy Chennoji,
Age 38 years, Occu. Service,
R/o H.No.1-10-210, Kailash Nagar,
Bhagya Nagar Road, Nanded
Tq. & Dist.Nanded ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. Joint Director of Technical Education,
Aurangabad, Near Government Polytechnic
College, Osmanpura, Post Bag No.516,
Station Road, Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad
3. Chairman,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 057
4. Registrar,
Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University,
Dnyan Tirth, Vishnupuri, Nanded,
Tq. And District Nanded
5. Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University,
Vidyavihar, Lonere, Raigad,
Tq. And District Raigad
6. Secretary,
Mahatma Gandhi Mission,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad
7. Principal,
Mahatma Gandhi Mission's College of Engineering,
Hingoli Road, Near Airport, Nanded,
Tq. And Dist. Nanded ..Respondents
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
(11)
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.V. Natu h/f Mr. V.P. Golewar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 to 9 : Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior
Counsel i/b Mr. V.S. Kadam
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Chaitanya V. Dharurkar
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi
Advocate for Applicants in CA : Mr. V.D. Salunke h/f Mr. M.V. Salunke
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 03, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 03, 2025
JUDGMENT :
- (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. Since both writ petitions are having identical issues,
taken up for common judgment and order.
3. Both petitions are filed by Bhartiya Kamgar Sena for and
on behalf of its members.
4. Writ Petition No.13897 of 2018 is filed by the Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena through its office bearers and rest of the petitioners
were its members and employees of Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust.
They were employed in the college set up by the trust in Nanded.
Admittedly, they are the employees. They had filed writ petition for
extending the pay scale under 7 th pay commission. That would be
applied to petitioner nos.7 to 21. They have also claimed the
payment of arrears in terms of the pay scale under 6 th pay
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
commission. They have given the details of their salary and the
proposed pay scale as per 6th pay commission. Their pay scale has
been prescribed by AICTE, State Government in terms of the
notification dated 05.03.2010 and Government Resolution dated
20.08.2010. It is the contention that refusing to pay the pay scale is
arbitrary and illegal. They are entitled to the pay band of Rs.15,600,
with AGP 6000, DA 23%, HRA. Respondent nos.6 and 7 are in
arrears of Rs.1.8 crores towards the salary of petitioner nos.7 to 21.
In alternate, they have prayed to withdraw the affiliation granted in
favour of respondent nos.6 and 7 by the State Government, AICTE
and respective universities.
5. Respondent nos.6 and 7, the contesting respondents,
have filed their affidavit in reply. They have raised the dispute that
the petitioner did not come with clean hands and on various
questions and facts involved in the writ petition are not tenable. Since
the petitioners are the teaching staff, they have alternate efficacious
remedy before the grievance committee established by respondent
nos.4 and 5 University. The relief claimed by the petitioner could be
considered by the grievance committee under the Maharashtra Public
University Act, 2016. The locus of petitioner nos.1 to 6 have also
been impugned. They also contended that respondent nos.6 and 7
institute did not deny the benefit of salary in accordance with the pay
scale prescribed by 6th pay commission recommendation to the
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
petitioner nos.7 to 21. They have also disputed their appointments
for not following the procedure contemplated under the Maharashtra
University Act, 1994. Therefore, the terms and conditions of
appointment order cannot be disputed by the petitioners. It was
purely a contract between the employer and employees, which they
had accepted at the relevant time. They have accepted the salary paid
to them while appointing them on temporary basis. Therefore, the
petitioners are estopped from raising any such dispute. Even the
engineering college run by the government, 30% staff is appointed on
consolidated salary. The AICTE has also permitted to appoint the
teaching staff on consolidated salary. Therefore, no rules have been
violated as contended in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court
cannot issue directions to compel them to implement the
recommendation of 6th pay commission to the petitioners as they were
not appointed by following the due procedure of law and by duly
constituted selection committee. The petitioners cannot file the writ
petition in representative capacity. The petitioner even is not a
democratic union formed for the purpose of ventilating the grievance
of employee. The union cannot ask for directions to take action
against the institute for withdrawal of the recommendation and
cancellation of affiliation which amounts to closure of the institution.
As per rules and regulation of AICTE, petitioner nos.7 to 21 are not
entitled to the pay scale as contended in the writ petition. Since their
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
selection was not as per the procedure, their proposal for approval to
the university was not submitted. In the light of this situation, they
cannot be considered as approved and on permanent posts and
acquired the permanency.
6. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment
orders issued to respondent nos.7 to 21, it was specifically mentioned
that the pay scale and allowance will be paid as prescribed by MGM's
Trust from time to time. The appointment order discloses that their
appointments would be temporary and on contractual basis. Hence,
they are also not entitled to seek directions as they sought in the
petition. At the time of enacting the Marathwada University Act,
1974, the policy in respect of the unaided institutes was not in
existence. There was no occasion for the legislature to contemplate
any rules and regulations governing service conditions of private
unaided institute like respondent no.7. Therefore, the general
directions of the State Government would not prevail over the
Marathwada University Act, 1974. In nutshell, it is their reply that for
the above reasons, the recommendation of 6th pay commission would
not be applied to their institution. Therefore, denying all the
statements of the petitioners, they have prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
7. The facts of Writ Petition No.14395 of 2019 in brief were
that the petitioner was the union representing its employees filed the
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
writ petition for implementing 7 th pay commission. They have the
case that in the earlier round of litigation when the 6 th pay
commission recommendation was not applied, this Court had directed
respondent nos.6 and 7 to apply the 6 th pay commission. The matter
was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court had dismissed the writ petition of contesting respondent nos.6
and 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court warned the contesting
respondents that for such a pay scale on the recommendation by the
pay commission, the employee should not be forced to knock on the
doors of the Court of law. A contempt proceeding was filed and the
contempt petition was disposed of on the settlement terms and
conditions and the issue of pay scale as per the 6 th pay commission
was set at rest. In view of the settlement terms, the contesting
respondents has agreed to pay the agreed amount in installments.
However, it is yet not complied with. Few of the petitioners have
been retired. Again, pay scale as per the 7 th pay commission was not
applied. Even after warning of Hon'ble Supreme Court want to the
contesting respondents, they have to knock the doors of the Court of
law to seek the directions against them to implement and apply pay
scale as per 7th pay commission with effect from 01.01.2016 as
prescribed in notification dated 01.03.2019 issued by AICTE,
Government Resolutions dated 08.03.2019 and 11.09.2019 and
notification dated 07.09.2019 issued by the State Government.
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
8. The contesting respondents have also filed the affidavit in
reply and raised identical questions as raised in the earlier petition.
However, to avoid repetition, those are not reproduced. During the
course of arguments, the contesting respondents have placed certain
proposals that the petitioners should sit across the table with the
management to find out the solution. The arguments of the
contesting respondents reveal that the college is not running good
and facing financial crisis. Hence, unable to pay the claims as claimed
by the petitioners. It also appears that the contesting respondent is
applying the past successful method of getting the dispute settled by
securing undertaking from employees under the threat of closing
down the college and with uncertain delay in clearing the arrears.
Hence, they were forcing for sitting across the table.
9. The civil applicants who are the employees of the
contesting respondents, appeared through counsel and contended
that respondent no.10 institute is running on permanent no grant
basis. During the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent
no.9 established MGM university with prior approval of the State
Government. Indirectly, they appear to be in the shoe of the
contesting respondents. In addition to that they had submitted that
the affairs of the institute depends upon the fees collected from the
students. Since last many years, the admissions were falling down.
Their contention appears supporting the contesting respondents on
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
the financial condition and low admissions in the colleges. Any how
they wanted to be in employment at the term of the employer. The
gist of their petition is that due to the demand of the petitioners
which are impracticable and by cutting a tree, their nest is going to
destroy.
10. With the above background, we have heard the
respective counsels at length and find that the questions for
determination is, can the defence raised by the contesting
respondents would survive and the decision of the AICTE,
government resolutions would not apply to the institutions?
11. The another questions arise for determination were, does
the petition is tenable as alternate efficacious remedy is available to
the petitioners in view of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 2016.
12. The most relevant question that is to be answered is, can
the contesting respondents be exempted from paying the arrears of
salary and applying the pay scale as per 7 th pay commission
recommendation under threat that they have no option except to
close down the college.
13. In view of the submissions of the intervenors, can the
right of the petitioners be denied.
14. Both respective counsels have placed on record the case
laws. Those will be considered in due course.
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
15. Most of the facts are admitted. Hence, need not be
reproduced. The two groups of the employees are fighting against
each other. One group, who are the petitioners in this writ petition
claiming the remuneration from the management for which they are
entitled in view of the implementation of 7 th pay commission to them.
In the earlier round of litigation, the same employees have to knock
the doors of the law for implementing 6 th central pay commission to
them which was undisputedly made applicable to the institution run
by the management. The AICTE is the statutory body of the
Government of India which provides for establishment of an All India
Council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning
and co-ordinate development of the technical education system
throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of
such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the
regulation of proper maintenance of norms and standards in the
technical education system and for matters connected therewith. The
AICTE provides for regulation for grant the approval for starting new
technical institutions and other matters connected therewith. There is
no dispute that the government of Maharashtra by a Government
Notification dated 11.09.2019 had applied the revision of pay scales
minimum qualification for appointment, terms and conditions of the
teachers and other academic staff, even applicable to the autonomous
institutions. By this notification, 6th pay commission pay scale was
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
applied. It is seriously disputed that by following the due procedure
of law, 7th pay commission was also applied and the revision of pay
scale was implemented.
16. Few of the petitioners have been retired. They have
rendered their services for sufficient time without any interruption
and stigma. The management ever not took any action against their
services rendered. However, to dodge the implementation of 7 th pay
commission, the management came with the defence that their
appointments were not in accordance with the law is nothing but a
futile attempt against the rule of estoppel. The management was well
aware when it sought the approval from the AICTE and other
authorities to run the college where the petitioners were appointed
permanently on unaided basis. Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust was
in existence and continuously expanding the education institutions to
impart the quality education to the students at various places. Under
one roof, the trust runs various colleges at various places. A conscious
decision was taken by the trustees to open the colleges where the
petitioners were employed under the permanent no aid basis.
Perhaps the decision was with a confidence that they would be able to
arrange for the finance required to run the colleges. Though it has
been tried to portray that the colleges were unable to run on the basis
of the admission, we do not agreeable with such submissions for the
simple reason that parting education is not a profiteering industry. It
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
is a charity for the welfare of the society. The charity institutions run
on the donations and various sources to impart the education.
17. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde put on record a
statement of the accounts of the colleges where the petitioners were
appointed. Placing it on record, he would argue that the colleges are
facing financial deficiency of crores of rupees. Placing the document
on record, he tried to convince the Court that the act of the
management were not deliberate to dodge the salary. Another limb of
his argument was that the economic viability is an important
consideration for determining the wage structure and pay revision. To
bolster his argument, he relied on the case of Punjab State
Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another Vs.
Balbir Kumar Walia and Others, (2021) 8 SCC 784 . In that case, the
petitioner was a cooperative milk producers federation. It was a
industry. Every such industry runs on the principle of profit making
on investment. This case law dealt with the doctrine of equal pay for
equal work. The education institutions are admittedly not the
industries atleast for the purpose of profiteering. The case law is put
into service with an argument that the High Court has very limited
scope of judicial review the fixation of pay scales and its revision.
Herein the case at hand, the institution runs under the regulation of
AICTE Act. The appointments were also in pursuance of the
regulations. The aspirants, who were invited for the appointments
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
were impressed that the trust is competent to bear with their salary
and other benefits. The trust/management has gained the confidence
of the aspirants for the employment in their institution with a
legitimate expectation that they would be paid the salary and other
benefits they deserve in view of the regulations applied to them. The
institution was not like the industry where there used to be an
agreement between the employer and the employee for fixing the pay
scale and its revision after certain duration. The institutions run by
the management were under the control of AICTE as well as the State
Government. So, the logic of economic viability of the institution may
not be a ground to dodge the pay scale, which was applied to the
petitioners pursuance to the government resolutions as well as the
regulations framed under the AICTE Act. Once the government has
determined the pay scale and a conscious decision is taken for
applying the revision to the pay scales under the central pay scale
commission, it would not lie in the mouth of the management that
the question raised before the Court has very limited jurisdiction to
review the same.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed
that there is no question of pay fixation and its revision. Their pay
was already fixed under the regulations mentioned above and they
were paid for a longer time. However, the revision of their pay was
governed under the pay commission and they just wanted to
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
implement the government notification/resolution to apply the 7 th pay
commission as well as the regulations framed by the AICTE for their
employment. In view thereof, we are of the view that this case would
not assist the respondent/management.
19. So far as the other employees, who appeared in this
Court by way of an intervention application is concerned, they are
literally in the shoe of the management. Since the financial condition
of the institution is viable as per the contention of the management,
they agreed to receive the salary at the whims of the management.
However, they have been shown the dream that their salaries would
be paid as and when economic condition of the college would
improve. With the shield of other co-employees, the management
intends to bow the petitioners before them to settle the dispute as
earlier the petitioners had settled the dispute due to the fear of
closing the college and losing the job permanently. This fear appears
to have been kept alive in the mind of the employees who are before
the Court by way of an intervention application.
20. We have already expressed our opinion that when the
management had decided to open the college on permanent non-aid
basis, the management was confident that they would be able to run
the college without any financial support from the government and in
any event. So, putting the employees under threat of closing down
the college and throwing them away from job should not be used as a
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
weapon to deprive the employees to get their pay for the services they
had rendered. Opening the education institution and closing down it
at the whims of the management could also not be accepted more
particularly for the economic crisis. The AICTE is the regulating
authority and for such reasons, the AICTE should not accept the
proposal for closing down the college without protecting the
employment of the employees, who are rendering the services for
years together and who are otherwise age barred in getting another
employment. At the cost of repetition, we may say that such a
education institution should not be closed down at the whims of the
management. There are many examples when the trust is unable to
run the college, such colleges are entrusted/transferred to another
institutions which is willing and capable to run the same and this
practice probably might have been accepted to protect the
employment of the employees who have spent their lives for the
institution and they should not be thrown on the road at the whims of
the management or their incapacity to run the institution. A fact that
must be borne in mind is that the colleges in which the petitioners are
the employees are run by the Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust. As we
have already observed above that the education institution are not the
profiteering industries, there may not be a ground to close down the
college where the petitioners are employees only for having no good
number of students and income source of the particular college. The
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
management should bonafide produce the entire balance sheet of the
trust. But, this seems to have deliberately not done with a view to
threat the employees of losing their job permanently.
21. The co-employees who are opposing the petition through
Advocate Shri Salunke in fact have no right to seek the injunction or
deny the right to the petitioners of their legitimate right to get the pay
scale as per the regulation. Considering their conduct, accepting the
terms and conditions of the management to render the services at the
remuneration the management is intending to pay is their choice,
probably they had their own reservations. Merely, the petitioners
seeking implementation of 7th pay and they may be losing
employment permanently is not a ground to refuse the legitimate
right of the employees. Therefore, we do not find substance in the
argument of the learned counsel Mr. Salunke that the petitioners are
cutting the trees for their benefits and destroying the nests of others.
We have already cleared above that closing down the institution at
the whims of the management is unsustainable for the reason that
there are certain rules and regulations for running the colleges.
22. Mr. Salunke relied on the case of Shri Saibaba Gramin
Vikas Sanstha, Gadchiroli and another Vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji
Maharaj Nagpur University and others, 2011 (3) Mh.L.J., 790 , to
bolster his argument that the petitioners have an alternate remedy for
implementation of the pay commission. In this case, Section 57 of the
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
Maharashtra Universities Act was referred to and it has been observed
that the grievance committee is empowered to hear grievances and
forward the report to the Management Council which alone is
empowered to take the final decision and pass an appropriate order.
Considering the overall facts of the case and the issue involved in the
matter with earlier round of litigation, we are of the opinion that this
case would not help Mr. Salunke. In fact, the co-employees as
observed above has no right to defeat the interest of the petitioners.
We hold that the intervenors have very limited right much less than
no right to oppose the petition of the petitioners.
23. The case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences
and Ors Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and Ors, 2010 AIR SCW
1923, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. MB Power (Madhya
Pradesh) Limited, AIR 2024 SC 721 relied on by the learned counsel
Mr. Salunke appears not relevant to the issue involved in this case.
He also relied on the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive
Company Limited Vs. Their Workmen, (1981) 4 SCC 627 which was
dealing with the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
issue involved in that case was also altogether different. The rules for
the settlement of the pay scales is dealt with under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. We have already observed above that the services
of the petitioners are governed under the AICTE regulations and the
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
government notification mentioned above. Hence, we are of the
opinion that this case would also not help the invervenors.
24. As discussed above, the management has tried to dodge
the implementation of 7th pay scale raising the objection that the
appointments of the petitioners were not according to law. At the
relevant time, Maharashtra Universities Act was in force. We are not
in agreement with the argument of the learned senior counsel Mr.
Dhorde. No objection at any time about their appointments was
raised. The appointment of the petitioners were perfectly in
accordance with law and they have rendered their services for long
time. So, they cannot be thrown away at this juncture. Such a
defence would not lie in the mouth of the management.
25. With the able assistance of the respective counsels, we
have gone through the papers, relevant regulations and resolutions of
the government and satisfied that the petitioners deserve the pay
scales and arrears of pay as per 7 th pay commission. The grounds
raised by the management as well as the intervenors do not stand to
the legal test. The management cannot deny the salary for the
services rendered by the petitioners on the settled terms and
conditions and regulations of the employment. We do not find
substance in the defence. Hence, we discard it and pass the following
order :
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
ORDER
(i) Both writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The respondent/management is directed to implement
recommendations of 6th and 7th pay commission to all the petitioners,
who are in service and retired forthwith and pay them the salary and
arrears of salary with retiral benefits to the employees who have
retired within four months from today.
(iii) Civil Application No.2912 of 2024 stands disposed of.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(v) No order as to costs.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S.G. MEHARE, J.)
26. After the judgment is pronounced, the contesting
respondent is asking for the stay to the judgment for six weeks.
27. This is an interesting case. In the earlier round of
litigation same respondents were directed to apply the 6 th Pay
Commission benefits. Under the garb of closing down the college, the
employees were compelled to settle the dispute. We have already
observed that such practice cannot be applied by the employer. It put
the employees under threat of closing down of college. Petitioners are
waiting for their pay for last eight years. We have also been told that
as per earlier settlement the 6th Pay Commission salary has also not
wp-14395-2019 judg.odt
been paid. In view of the facts of the case, we do not find to keep
employees again waiting for their right. Hence, we reject the prayer
for stay to the judgment.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S.G. MEHARE, J.)
Mujaheed//
