Employees of educational institutions are entitled to pay scales as per government regulations, regardless of management claims of financial incapacity or improper appointment procedures.

JUDGMENT :

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 commission. They have given the details of their salary and the proposed pay scale as per 6^th 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 6^th pay commission recommendation to the 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 6^th 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 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 permane