T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both sides for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed by the employees from teaching staff of one private unaided College of Pharmacy which is represented by respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the present proceeding for the relief of direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to take necessary steps to see that respondent Nos.7 and 8 pay to the petitioners salary, allowances, arrears thereof and make available the benefits of the proposals made by the 6th Pay Commission.

3. Respondent Nos.7 and 8, the management, is running Graduate as well as Post-Graduate courses in Pharmacy Branch at Aurangabad on self finance basis. The petitioners are working as Lecturers, Assistant Professors and Associate Professors.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the Government of Maharashtra has accepted the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission which were already accepted by the Central Government and the benefits are extended to the employees of the University and the affiliated colleges. It is the case of the petitioners that the effective date for the application of the recommendations is fixed as 1-1-2006. It is contended that the petitioners had filed many representations with the management and also with University and other authorities for seeking the relief claimed in the present matter but the management has not given any response to the representations. The petitioners are relying on the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No.11091 of 2010 decided with connected matters on 10-2-2012. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the management of one Engineering College from Aurangabad to see that the pay scales suggested by the 6th Pay Commission are applied to both the teaching and non teaching staff with effect from 1-1-2006. This decision was challenged by the management of that college but the Apex Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the management. This decision of Apex Court dated 5-1-2017 is reported in the case reported as 2017(1) ALL MR 947 (SC) (Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission and Anr. vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Ors). It is the contention of the petitioners that the institution involved in that previous matter was also technical institution and so similar direction needs to be given in the present matter.

5. Respondent No.8 has filed affidavit-in-reply. Respondent-management has contested the present proceeding by making various contentions some of which are quoted in this decision. One of the petitioners has filed affidavit as rejoinder to reply the contentions made by the respondent Nos.7 and 8. 5) The learned counsels for the University and All India Council for Technical Education (for short, “AICTE”) submitted that in view of the decision given by this Court which is confirmed by the Apex Court, they are supporting the petitioners. The learned counsel for the AICTE made further submissions by drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987 and submitted that to ensure that the students studying in such colleges get quality education, teaching staff needs to get the salary as proposed by 6th Pay Commission and which is being given to the teaching staff of the colleges receiving Government aid. He submitted that the circumstances that respondent management is not getting Government aid and the probability that the management is required to manage the things on the fees collected cannot be considered for deciding the present matter. He placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as (2013) 3 SCC 385 (Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education) and took this Court through paragraphs 21 and 24 of the reported case to show that the conditions imposed by the AICTE need to be fulfilled. He submitted that the regulations made by the AICTE are now placed before both the Houses of the Parliament and in any case du