The right to grant-in-aid is not absolute and depends on state financial policy, thereby, limitations on salary grants imposed by the State are lawful.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing Clause No.10 of the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 issued by the State of Maharashtra through its Higher and Technical Department-respondent no.1, by which a system for processing salary bills through computerized system namely HTE-Sevarth Pranali has been implemented throughout the State. The petitioner has further prayed to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ against respondent nos.1 and 2 to decide pending proposal/representation made by the petitioner for release of 100% salary and allowances to its members through HTE-Sevarth Pranali, which is pending since 2016.

3. The petitioner contends that it is a registered Society under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, functioning under name and style as “Government Aided Technical Institutes Employees Welfare Board” (GATIWEB) and committed for welfare of its members, who are employees of the Government Aided Technical Institutions under Directorate of Technical Education-respondent no.2.

4. The petitioner further contends that its members are employees of respondent nos.3 to 46 institutions, who are conferred with grant-in-aid, pursuant to Government Policy promulgated under Government Resolution dated 18.05.1978. The said Government Resolution prescribes Rules for assessment and release of grant-in-aid to Non-Government Engineering, Technical- Technological Colleges and Polytechnics in the State. According to the petitioner, entire estimated expenditure on pay and allowances, as sanctioned by the Government from time to time towards staff approved by the Director of Technical Education, is made admissible for the purpose of grant-in-aid. Even expenditure on pay and allowances, the expenditure on rent, taxes, books and periodicals for the library etc. are also made admissible for grants. In pursuance of said policy of the State, respondent nos.3 to 46 were receiving grant-in-aid. Consequently, the employees were paid 100% salary out of grant-in-aid. This system was in vogue till promulgation of the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015, by which the system has been introduced to release the salary of the approved employees through HTE-Sevarth Pranali in respect of the institutions covered under the Directorate. However, Clause No.10 of the said Government Resolution stipulates that aided non- government “Arts as well as Technical Education Institutions covered under the Directorate are eligible for 90% grants.” However, no care is taken to secure release of balance 10% salary. According to the petitioner, as a result of the aforesaid Clause, the right of the employees to receive 100% salary has been curtailed. There is no rational behind the introduction of the aforesaid Clause to release only 90% salary grants from HTE-Sevarth Pranali.

5. The petitioner further contends that impugned Clause No.10 of the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice. The employees are facing economical difficulties and financial duress since the Institutions are short of funds to regularly pay their rightful salary. The petitioner made several rep