Bharati H. Dangre, J.

1. The Writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by the petitioner No.1, D.Y. Patil College of Engineering which is run by the petitioner No.2 D.Y. Patil Pratisthan, District-Kolhapur. The present Writ Petition seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing and setting aside two Government Resolutions issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 20.10.2000 and 07.10.2009, to the extent that they direct retrospective effect to be given to the pay revisions to the employees of the petitioner No.1. The grievance raised by the present petition is limited to the retrospective implementation of the 5th and 6th pay commission recommendation and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have no hesitation in implementing the recommendations of the pay commission itself.

2. The petitioner No.1 who has obtained a necessary permission under the All India Council for Technical Education Act (for short 'AICTE' Act) in the year 1984 and is affiliated to Savitribai Phule, Pune University and is a non-aided private institution imparting education of a professional course. The petitioner submits that the college is not in receipt of any grant from the State Government since it is a non-aided institution and the infrastructural arrangements are catered to from the fees received from the students and the same amount is used for payment of salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioner No.1. The petitioners before us has no qualm about implementing the recommendations of the 5th and 6th pay commission to its eligible staff but it is only the retrospective effect of such pay revision which hurts the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the Government of India had taken a decision on 9.10.1998 implementing the revision of pay-scale of teachers in technical institution, following the revision of pay-scale of Central Government Employees on the recommendation of 5th pay, Central Pay Commission. The Government of India had thereafter notified and made its implementation applicable to the AICTE. According to the petitioner the State Government granted its approval for the implementation of the revised pay-scale to the teachers etc., in the Government and non-Government, Engineering College with effect from 1.1.1996. Similarly, in respect of the recommendations of 6th pay commission, the Government of Maharashtra accepted the same and the decision was taken pursuant to the Pay Revision Committee popularly known as Hakim Committee and the pay revision was directed to be implemented with effect from 1.1.2006. The petitioners do not dispute that they are governed by these rules and regulations formulated by the AICTE, which is a statutory body. The petition contains the categorical statement that the Government Resolution issued by the State Government directed the benefit of the 5th and 6th pay commission to be extended to the teachers as well as to the non-teaching staff of the petitioner institution, there is no opposition to implement the recommendations of 5th pay commission and 6th pay commission as contained in the Government Resolutions but the only objection is to apply the same retrospectively.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Shri.Anturkar appearing for the petitioners would categorically make a submission before us that by no stretch of imagination the petitioners are assailing the applicability of 5th and 6th pay recommendations but the limited challenge is only to its retrospective effect. The learned counsel would submit that the issue to be decided is whether a private non-aided institutions like the petitioner should be foisted with an application to pay the employee's retrospectively, the salary made applicable to them in terms of the recommendations of the revised pay commission and whether it can be made imperative in such institutions to discharge heavy burden of arrears. The learned Senior counsel woul