IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition would not be maintainable against a private unaided educational institution in a service dispute if the institution is not governed or controlled by statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The present Writ Appeal preferred by the Appellant – Sri Sankara Education Society is directed against the Order dated 8.8.2022 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of W.P.(S) No.6540 of 2010 filed by Respondent No.1 – Ku. Veena Pal holding it to be maintainable against the Appellant Society, which is a private unaided educational institution, and further directing the Appellant Society to pay all the monetary benefits in respect of revised pay scale and other dues payable to Respondent No.1.

2. The short question that arises for our consideration in this Writ Appeal is as under:-

“Whether the learned Single was justified in holding that the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.1 – Ku. Veena Pal is maintainable against the Appellant Society which is a private unaided educational institution, relating to service dispute?”

3. The above-stated question of law arises out of the following factual backdrop of the case:-

That the Appellant Society is an educational institution and is running a Higher Secondary School in the name of ‘Sri Sankara Education Society’ situated at Sector 10, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh and it is affiliated by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Respondent No.1 – Ku. Veena Pal was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Appellant Society. On 22.2.2008, the Respondent No.1 – Ku. Veena Pal filed a Civil Suit seeking damage to the extent of One Lakh rupees against the Appellant Society. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the said Civil Suit, the Appellant Society revised the pay scale as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and granted the revised pay scale to all its employees but declined the said benefit to Respondent No.1, which led to her filing of W.P.S. No.6540 of 2010 titled as “Ku. Veena Pal Vs. Sri Sankara Education Society and Others” in which the Appellant Society raised a plea of non- maintainability of the said writ petition but the learned Single Judge by impugned Order dated 8.8.2022 turned down the said plea of non-maintainability in light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Shrivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449 and ultimately directed the Appellant Society to pay the benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission and annual increment payable to Respondent No.1 – Ku. Veena Pal, leading to filing of the present Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 by the Appellant Society.

4. Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Appellant Society, would submit that the Writ of Mandamus sought for by Respondent No.1 against the present Appellant which is a private unaided educational institution seeking benefits of the revised pay scale would not be maintainable as there is no statutory provision, rule or government order directing the private unaided educational institution to implement the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. Furthermore, in light of the finding recorded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in clause (c) of paragraph 69 in the matter of St. Mary’s Education Society and Another v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1091 the Respondent No.1 has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of matter relating to service as the Appellant Society is not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. The impugned Order as such is liable to be set-aside and the Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 – Ku. Veena Pal, would support the impugned Order and submit that the Appellant- Society’s objections have rightly been overruled by the learned Single Judge in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya (supra) and the impugned Order therefore does not deserve any interference but affirmation.

6. We have heard learned