Bhartiya Kamgar Sena vs The State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Bom) 308

2012(2) AllMR 597
High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
NARESH H. PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 11091 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8780 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2035 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4443 OF 2009
Decided On : 10-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S.R. Choukidar, S.S. Choudhari, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P, R3 & R4, Alok Sharma, A.S.G, R5, K.M. Suryawanshi, R7, V.D. Salunke with Nimbalkar, R.V. Ghuge, V.P. Latange, Advocates.

Headnote:All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 10 - Entitlement to pay scale fixed by 5th Pay Commission - Since writ petition filed by Teaching Staff in 2010, for recovery of amount in respect of scales fixed by 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is very late hence due to laches no relief can be granted however Management compelled to implement new pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006. - In writ petition teaching staff has prayed for recovery of the amount in respect of the scales fixed by 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996. It can be said that the teachers came very late for this relief and due to latches, such relief cannot be given to them. Further, it would not be proper to allow the Management to recover the amount in respect of arrears of salary for the period from 1.1.1996 to 1.1.2006 in respect of these teachers in future from new students. So, the writ petition can be allowed for compelling the Management to implement new pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006.
       All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 10 - Implementation of pay scale in Engineering College - Fee Regulatory Committee, while fixing fees of students of professional courses, is required to consider salaries and allowances required to be paid by Management to teaching and non- teaching staff.
       The Management has contended that it cannot afford to implement the aforesaid pay scales as it does not receive grants-in-aid from the Government. In view of the Rules and directions already mentioned, this contention of Management cannot be considered. Further in Section 10(n) of A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987, commercialization of technical education cannot be allowed to be done. The State Government constitutes Fee Regulatory Committee ["F.R.C." for short] for fixing the fees of students of such professional courses and the law prepared in that regard is being discussed at other place. While fixing the fees, such Committee is expected to consider the salaries and allowances required to be paid by the Management to teaching and non-teaching staff. Due to this reason also, the contention with regard to affordability of the ’Management cannot be considered. There are other reasons also like the maintaining the standards of the course. In the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 295, K. Krishnamacharyulu and others V. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and another, while considering similar claim of the employees, the Apex Court held that in such a claim, there is an element of public interest and so Article 226 of Constitution of India needs to be used in such cases.
       All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 10 - Entitlement to Revised Pay Scale - Management of Engineering Colleges are bound to implement revision of pay scales and hierarchical structure of staff prepared by A.I.C.T.E. and State Government respectively.

Judgment :-

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matters are heard finally.

2. All the petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In the first three petitions, the petitioners have claimed relief of direction against the State Government, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded and All India Council for Technical Education ("A.I.C.T.E." for short) that they should compel the Management of Mahatma Gandhi Mission, an institution, which is running engineering colleges at Aurangabad and Nanded, to implement the recommendations made by Pay Commissions regarding pay scales. The last petition is filed against the State Government, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and University Grant Commission for relief of direction that they should compel the Management of Mahatma Gandi Mission, and its Deemed University, which is running a Medical College at Aurangabad, to implement the recommendations of Pay Commission regarding the pay scales. As the two engineering colleges and the medical college are being run by the same institution and as the same points are involved in all the petitions, they are being decided together. The colleges and the deemed university are not receiving grants-in-aid from the Government.

3. Writ Petition No. 11091/2010 is filed by teaching and non teaching staff of engineering college run by the respondent No. 6 Institution in Aurangabad. Petitioners No. 2 to 59 are members of teaching staff and the remaining petitioners are members of non teaching staff. Petitioner No. 1 is said to be a Union formed by them. In this petition, relief is claimed that the Management should be compelled to implement the 6th Pay Commission Report, both in respect of teaching and non teaching staff. The teaching staff has claimed one more relief of direction that the Management should pay the arrears in respect of the implementation of 5th Pay Commission Report also (for the period from 1.1.1996 to April 2001). During the arguments, the advocate for the teaching staff submitted that the relief in respect of arrears of 5th Pay Commission Report is not pressed. This college is affiliated to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (respondent No. 5).

4. Writ Petition No. 8780/10 is filed by non teaching staff of Engineering College, Nanded, run by Mahatma Gandhi Mission at Nanded. This college is affiliated with Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. In this petition the non teaching staff has prayed for a relief of direction that the Management should implement the Reports of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions and it should give all consequential benefits to the non teaching staff.

5. The petitioner from Writ Petition No. 2035/2011 was working as 'store keeper' from October 1988 to 20.6.2006 in the Engineering College, Nanded run by Mahatma Gandhi Mission. He left the job by putting in resignation. He has prayed for a relief of implementation of Reports of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions. He has prayed for a relief like direction to the Management to pay arrears of salary, if the reports are implemented. He has also prayed for a relief of direction that the Management should pay the gratuity amount accordingly. He has also prayed for direction that the Management should pay salary in respect of encashment of leave of 180 days which was in his account when he left the college.

6. Writ Petition No. 4443/2009 is filed by non teaching staff of respondent No.7, a Deemed Medical University run at Aurangabad by the same Management. The petitioners have prayed for relief of implementation of Report of 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996 and also for consequential benefits.

7. For the implementation of the Report of 5th Pay Commission, the non teaching staff from Writ Petition No. 11091/2010 had filed Writ Petition No. 333/2002 in this Court in the past

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(Bom) 308

Cases Referred (3)