Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The issue that arises for consideration in the above petitions is as to whether the Management Council of the respondent no. 1 University is required to hear the petitioners prior to arriving at a decision based on the report of the Grievance Committee.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus :

The petitioner no.11s a Foundation, which has established the petitioner no.2 Dental College. The respondent no.5 in each of the above petitions were working with the petitioner no.2. The respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 2961/2011 has superannuated on 31/5/2007 whereas respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No.2962/2011 has been dismissed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry, which was held against him and which culminated in the said dismissal order passed in the year 2010.

4. The respondent' no.5 in each of the above petitions approached the Grievance Committee of the respondent no.1 University. The grievance of the respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 2961/2011 was in respect of non payment of gratuity and the arrears of salary of three years, which remained unpaid though he had retired on 31/5/2007. The grievance of the respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 2962/2011 was as regards non payment of difference of back wages and subsistence allowance. The said grievances of the respondent employees were considered by the Grievance Committee and the Grievance Committee submitted its report dated 27/7/2008 to the Management Council of the respondent no.1 University.

5. Insofar as payment of gratuity was concerned, the Grievance Committee issued a direction in that respect and in respect of contribution to be deposited in the Provident Fund Account of the respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 2961/2011 and a130 a direction in respect of amount of increment. Insofar as respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No.2962/20111s concerned, similar directions were issued in respect of the alleged outstanding amount.

6. The Management Council of the respondent no. 1 University which is established under Section 26 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 considered the report of the Grievance Committee dated 27/7/2008 and accepted the said report in toto by passing a Resolution dated 25/9/2008. Though the facts subsequent to the said decision of the Management Council are not relevant from the point of issue that arises for consideration in the above petitions, they have been mentioned to complete the narration.

7. The petitioners aggrieved by the said Resolution dated 25/9/2008 passed by the Management Council filed an Application for review. The said application of the petitioners came to be rejected by the Management Council by order dated 29/ 12/2008 inter alia holding that there was no provision for review. It appears that the respondent no.1 University thereafter vide its communication dated 12/2/2009 informed the petitioners that the directions of the Management Council dated 25/9/2008 have to be complied with. Thereupon the petitioners by their letter dated 23/3/2009 replied that some part of the directions are complied with insofar as respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 2961/20111s concerned except the payment of gratuity, as according to the petitioners, the Teachers working with the petitioner no.2 were not entitled to payment of gratuity. In support of their claim that the payments have been made, the petitioners vide their letter dated 4/5/2009 sent attested copies of the receipts indicating that the payments have been made to the respondent no.5 in each of the above petitions.

8. It appears that thereafter on 7/7/2010 a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners by the Registrar of the respondent no. 1 University as to why its affiliation should not be cancelled for noncompliance of the decision of the Management Council dated 25/9/2008. The said show cause notice was replied to b