The exclusion of non-teaching staff from revised pay scales in unaided institutions is arbitrary, violating Article 14's guarantee of equality, as both aided and unaided staff should equally share in benefits of state-imposed pay revisions.

1. Leave granted.

2. The first appellant in all these three appeals is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 . The first appellant established and has been administering two engineering colleges, one at Nanded and another at Aurangabad in the State of Maharashtra. The first respondent appears to be an unregistered body of persons who are the employees of the first appellant. They are the staff of the abovementioned two engineering colleges belonging either to the category of teaching or non - teaching staff. The details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this case.

3. In the year 2002, the first respondent and others (some non - teaching members in the employment of the appellant) approached the Bombay High Court by way of a Writ Petition No. 333 of 2002 praying that the respondent therein (which included the authorities of the State of Maharashtra) be directed to extend the benefits of the revised pay scales as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission set up by the Government of India to the employees of the appellant herein. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 19th December, 2003 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court [11. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the Petition will have to be allowed by issuing the following directions.
(1) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, is directed, within a period of three months from today, to enforce the pay - scales in terms of the Rules, and on failure by Respondent No. 2, to make the payment to the non - teaching in terms of the Rules so also to take steps according to law including withdrawal of recognition of the Respondent No. 2 as an affiliated college;
(2) The Respondent No. 3, considering the Affidavit filed before this Court and the terms of recognition, within a period of three months from today, is directed to see that the Respondent No. 2 implements the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission and on failure to do so, to take steps to withdraw the recognition according to law;
Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 14 of the Judgment)] giving various directions to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 5 in that Writ Petition).

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the employer carried the matter to this Court in SLP (C) No. 19567-19568 of 2004 which came to be dismissed by an order of this Court dated 24/10/2005.

5. Subsequently, there was a settlement dated 30/01/2006 between the appellant and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 333 of 2002. The terms of the settlement were reduced to writing whereunder the non - teaching staff (petitioners in WP 333 of 2002) of the appellant agreed to waive their right to claim arrears of pay calculated in terms of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission for the period between January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2000. Correspondingly, the appellant herein undertook to implement future pay revisions[3) The management hereby agrees and admits that, the employees would be eligible for getting the pay and allowances revised regularly for the government employees by the government from time to time and the employees would be eligible for getting the pay and allowances arrived at having merged the 50% dearness allowance into the basic salary Pay of the employees from the month of July, 2006.].

6. The Sixth Pay Commission set up by the G