Allowed

Sanjay Rangnath Patare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Dec 2018WP/8390/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by teaching and non-teaching staff of an unaided Junior College of Pharmacy seeking salary fixation as per the 6th Pay Commission. The Bench held the College falls under 'school' under the M.E.P.S. Act but noted absence of specific pay scales in rules. Relying on State instructions and AICTE regulations, it directed payment as per the 6th Pay Commission effective from 01.01.2006, gra

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay salaries as per 6th Pay Commission from 10.08.2012; arrears up to the date of judgment to be paid within three months.

Sanjay Rangnath Patare and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

12-wp-8390-2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

12 WRIT PETITION NO. 8390 OF 2015

¶5

1. Shri. Sanjay s/o. Rangnath Patare, Age: 42 Years, Occu.: Lecturer, R/at. House No.73, Ananad Nagar, Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶6

2. Shri. Sanjeevkumar s/o. Kashinath Chelve, Age: 43 Years, Occu.: Lecturer, R/at. Siddheshwar Krupa Building, Plot No.48, Survey No.28/8, Shevgaon-Gaichap Road, Anand Nagar, Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶7

3. Shravan s/o Sangoji Rathod, Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Lecturer, R/at. C/o. Ashok Mahadeo Sudke, Sudke Niwas, Anandnagar, Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶8

4.Sunil s/o Damodar Mahajan,
Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Lecturer,
R/at. Near Sena Maharaj mandir,
Anand Nagar, Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶9

5. Ravindra s/o Pandurang Kasar, Age: 44 Years, Occu.: Sneior Clerk, R/at. Ganesh Peth, Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶10

6. Satish s/o. Trimbak Palse, Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Lab Assistant, R/at. At Post Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶11

7. Vijay s/o. Bhausaheb Khatik, Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Lab Assistant, R/at. Dangewadi, Post Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶12

8. Ramesh s/o. Bhagchand Satpute, Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Lab Attendant, R/at. Behind Anand College, Anand Nagar,

¶13

(2) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶14

Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶15

`9.`	`Pramod s/o Vilas Rodi,`
	`Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Lab Attendant,` `R/at. Ganesh Peth, Pathardi,` `Dist. Ahemdnagar.`
`10.`	`Bhausaheb s/o Sitaram Kute,` `Age: 40 Years, Occu.: Lab Attendant,` `R/at. Post Dhamangaon Deviche,` `Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.`
`11.`	`Raju s/o Ganpat Gosavi,` `Age: 40 Years, Occu.: Lab Attendant,` `R/at. Kasba Wes, Near Kholeshwar Mandir,` `Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar.`
`12.`	`Anna s/o Chabu Kalokhe,` `Age: 45 Years, Occu.: Peon,` `R/at. Kasba Wes, Near Maroti Mandir,` `Koradgaon Road, Pathardi,` `Dist. Ahemdnagar.` `..PETITIONERS` `VERSUS`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra,` `Through its Secretary,` `Higher And Technical Education Department,` `Mantralaya, Mumbai.`
`2.`	`All India Council for Technical Education,` `Human Resources and Development` `Department, 7`^th`Floor, Chandralok` `Building, Janpath, New Delhi.`
`3.`	`The Pharmacy Council of India,` `Combined Council Building, Tempal Lane,` `Kothala Road, Aiwan-E-Ghalib Marg,` `P.B.No.7020, New Delhi – 110002.`
`4.`	`The Director,` `Directorate of Technical Education,` `Maharashtra State, 3,` `Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No.1967,` `Mumbai – 400001.`

¶16

(3) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶17

5.The Joint Director,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Regional Office, Samangaon Road,
Government Polytechnic Area,
Nashik Road, Post Box No.219,
Nashik – 422101.

¶18

6.Shri. Tilok Jain Dnyan Prasarak Mandal,
Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahemdnagar,
Through its Secretary-
Satish s/o Chandmal Gugale,
Age: 48 Years, Occu.: Business,
R/at. Shri. Tilok Jain Dnyan Prasarak Mandal,
Lakar Lane, Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahemdnagar.

¶19

7.The Principal,
Shri. Anand College of Pharmacy,
Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahemdnagar...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mr. U. R. Awate, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Joshi, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Respondent
No.6.

¶21

Mr. Prashant R. Nangare, Advocate for Respondent
No.7.

¶22

… CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶23

 DATED : 3rd DECEMBER, 2018.

¶24

JUDGMENT(Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶25

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶26

With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for
hearing at admission stage.

¶27

2.The petitioners claim to be a members of

¶28

(4) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶29

the teaching and non teaching staff of Respondent
No. 7- Junior College of Pharmacy run by Respondent
No. 6- Society. The grievance of the petitioners
is that they are not paid the salaries as per the
recommendation of the 5th and 6th pay commission.

¶30

3.Mr. Awate, the learned counsel for
petitioners states that he is instructed to submit
that petitioners would be restricting their claim
for payment as per 6thpay commission from
01.01.2006. The learned advocate submits that
petitioners are the members of the teaching and non
teaching staff of Respondent No. 7- Junior College
of Pharmacy. The Respondent No. 7 is unaided
institution. The Respondent No. 6 is governed by
the A.I.C.T.E. rules and regulations framed and
issued by the A.I.C.T.E. According to the learned
counsel on or about 27th February, 2003 the Higher
and Technical Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra passed a resolution thereby prescribing
the pay scales of the teachers in the non-
government Pharmacy College. The pay fixation was
done as per the 5th pay commission. Thereafter, on
20thAugust, 2010 the Higher and Technical
Department, Government of Maharashtra made pay
fixation of the Lecturers in non-government
institutions as per the 6th pay commission.

¶31

4.Mr. Awate, the learned counsel further
submits that this court has called for the report

¶32

(5) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶33

from the Director of Technical Education and report
is submitted that payment has been made as per the
5th pay commission and no payment has been made as
per 6th Pay Commission.

¶34

5.For non teaching staff the Higher and
Technical Education Department under resolution
dated 20th October, 2000 prescribed the pay scales
as per the 5th pay commission and under Government
Resolution dated 7th May, 2010 prescribed the pay
scales of the members of the non teaching staff as
per 6th Pay Commission. The Respondent Nos. 5 and
6 were duty bound to implement the said Government
Resolutions, wherein the pay has been fixed. The
pay scales prescribed for teaching and non teaching
staff of aided private colleges can not be
different than the salaries to be paid by unaided
college. The pay scales would be uniform. The
learned counsel to substantiate his submissions
relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case
of Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission and Another Vs.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Others, reported in 2017
(4) SCC 449.

¶35

6.The learned counsel submits that the issue
about salaries of the members of the
teaching and non teaching staff of private
unaided colleges is no longer res integra and is
decided by the Division Bench of this Court at
Bombay as well Aurangabad. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the

¶36

(6) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶37

Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ
Petition No. 5150 of 2013 dated 15th January, 2018
and another judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court at the Principle Seat at Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 8493 of 2004 dated 16th August, 2018.

¶38

7.Mr. Barlinge, the learned counsel for the
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that the Diploma in
Pharmacy course is included under definition of
school and is governed by the provisions of
M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. Pay scales are prescribed
under Schedule 'C' of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The
parties would be governed by the pay scales as
prescribed in Schedule 'C' of the M.E.P.S. Rules.
M.E.P.S. Rules prescribes the pay scale for the
lecturers and also the non teaching staff of
college of education. The same pay scale would be
applicable to the members of the teaching and non
teaching staff of Junior College of Pharmacy. The
learned counsel relies on the definition of school
under Section 2 (24) of the M.E.P.S. Act. The
learned counsel submits that the executive
instruction/Government Resolutions relied by the
petitioners deal with the pay scales of non-
government aided institutions and government
institutions. The said resolutions are not
applicable to unaided colleges. The Respondent No.
7 is unaided college. According to the learned
counsel the letter of the Director of the Higher
Technical Education Department dated 18th May 2010

¶39

(7) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶40

is only dealing with the pay scales of aided
institutions and not of unaided institutions. The
learned counsel submits that the Nagpur Bench of
this Court in a case of Mahadev Pandurang More &
Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra& Ors. reported
in 2014 (5) ALL MR Page 1 has held that for schools
the pay scale applicable would be as per the
schedule ‘C’ of the M.E.P.S. Rules and it is also
held by the Division Bench of this Court that the
Junior College comes within the purview of the
definition of school.

¶41

8.Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel further
submits that the schedule has been amended in the
year 2017. Till the year 2017 the parties would be
governed by unamended schedule ‘C’. The learned
counsel submits that when the rules are holding the
field, the government instructions would not
prevail. The learned counsel in alternate submits
that the petitioner has approached the court
belatedly. There is an inordinate delay in
approaching the Court. The petition is filed in
the year 2015. The claim of the petitioner should
not be considered for the period prior to the
filing of petition.

¶42

9.The learned A.G.P. submits that it is the
responsibility of Respondent No. 6 to implement
respective pay scales and pay arrears of the
salary.

¶43

(8) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶44

10.We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective
parties.

¶45

11.The Junior College running diploma in
Pharmacy Course is within the realm of the
definition of school as contemplated under section
2(24) of the M.E.P.S. is no longer res integra. It
has been held in catena of judgments that junior
college running diploma in pharmacy course is
within the purview of the definition of school and
the provision of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules apply.

¶46

12.The M.E.P.S. Act and Rules regulate the
recruitment and the conditions of service of the
employees in private schools. Schedule 'C' of
M.E.P.S. Rules prescribes the pay scale payable to
the teachers. The said Rules are framed by the
State Government pursuant to its powers under
section 4 of the M.E.P.S. Act. We had asked the
learned counsel for the respondent-Institution the
pay scale prescribed under the said schedule for
the teachers for diploma in pharmacy course. No
such provision could be pointed out. The learned
counsel contended that the pay scale applicable to
the teachers in college of education shall be made
applicable. The petitioners are not the members of
the teaching and non-teaching staff of college of
education, but are of the junior college of diploma
in pharmacy. The schedule 'C' nor other provisions
in the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules prescribe the pay

¶47

(9) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶48

scales payable to the teachers in the junior
college (school) running diploma in pharmacy
course. In such a scenario the State can exercise
its executive powers by issuing administrative
orders, circulars, instructions or resolutions, so
long as the legislature does not make any law on
that subject. In absence of the pay scale being
provided by the Rules certainly reliance can be
placed on the Government instructions issued from
time to time.

¶49

13.We need not refer to the Government
Resolutions providing pay fixation as per 5th Pay
Commission, as the petition is now restricted
claiming pay scale as per the 6th Pay Commission as
effective from 01.01.2006.

¶50

14.One of the limb of the argument of the
respondent is that the Government Resolution deal
with the pay scale to be paid to the aided non-
government institution and respondent-Institution
is unaided institution. The aspect of the pay
scale for unaided institution was subject matter of
consideration before the Apex Court in a case of
Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission and Another Vs.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Others (supra).

¶51

15.The respondent no.7-Institution is covered
under the definition of Technical Education as
provided under section 2 (h) of the All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The
A.I.C.T.E. has made recommendations regarding the

¶52

(10) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶53

qualification and the pay scales for teachers under
the Higher and Technical Education. The A.I.C.T.E.
has prescribed the pay scales. The All India
Council for Technical Education is established
under the provision of A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987. In
exercise of its power, the Council had framed the
norms and standards for colleges offering diploma
course such as Polytechnic and Pharmacy. The
A.I.C.T.E. has under the notification dated
05.03.2010 enforced All India Council for Technical
Education [pay scales, service conditions and
qualifications for teachers and other academic
staff in technical institution (diploma)]
Regulations, 2010. It states that the said
regulations shall apply to the teachers in the
polytechnic namely Lecturers, Head of the
Department and Workshop Superintendent. The pay
scales and the career advancement of the teachers
and the conditions of eligibility and academic
qualification is provided by the A.I.C.T.E.. The
affidavit filed by the A.I.C.T.E. further says as
under:

¶54

“7.I further say that the applicability of
the Scheme under the regulation, prescribes
the following:

¶55

(i)This scheme shall be applicable to
teachers in Technical Institution and
other equivalent cadres in library and
physical education personnel in all the
AICTE approved institutions. The
implementation of the revised scales
shall be subject to the acceptance of all
the conditions mentioned in this letter

¶56

(11) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶57

as well as the regulations to be framed
by the AICTE in this behalf.

¶58

(ii)....

¶59

(iii)....

¶60

(iv)The entire liability on account of
revision of pay scales etc. of
Polytechnic teachers shall be that of the
State Government.

¶61

StateGovernment,takinginto
consideration other local conditions, may
also decide in their discretion, to
introduce scales of pay higher than those
mentioned in the scheme, and may give
effect to the revised bands/scales of pay
from a date on or after 01.01.2006.
However, appropriate steps to achieve the
goals and objectives of MHRD's “Sub-
Mission on Polytechnics” may be taken.

¶62

8.I further say that the regulations
prescribe the date of implementation of
revised pay and allowance and payment of
arrears, as under:

¶63

(i)The revised Pay and revised rates of
Dearness Allowances under this Scheme
shall be effective from 01.01.2006. The
revised rates of all other applicable
allowances such as House Rent Allowance,
Transport Allowance, Children Education
Allowance, etc. and the non-compoundable
advance increments shall take effect
from 01.09.2008.

¶64

(ii)...
(iii)....

¶65

(iv)The revised Pay in the relevant Pay
Bank and the Academic Grade Pay together
with the applicable allowances including
arrears of salary as mentioned above
shall be paid to all eligible
beneficiaries under this Scheme pending

¶66

(12) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶67

issue of Regulations by the AICTE.

¶68

(v)Anomalies,ifany,inthe
implementation, of this Scheme may be
brought to the notice of the Department
of Higher Education, Ministry of Human
Resource Development and AICTE, for
clarification.

¶69

16.ThusA.I.C.T.E.providesthe
norms/guidelines of the pay scales payable to the
teachers, qualifications and service conditions for
teachers and other academic staff in technical
institutions (Diploma), which is to be implemented
by the State Government. The affidavit further
states that the respondent no.7 has given a
undertaking to the A.I.C.T.E. and declared that the
management/institute is paying full salary to the
staff as per Rules and Regulations. The Government
Resolution dated 20.08.2010 prescribes the pay
scales of the teachers in diploma level technical
education as per 6th Pay Commission. Under the
said G.R. the Government infact accepted the
recommendations issued by A.I.C.T.E. under
notification dated 05.03.2010. The distinction
cannot be made in respect of the pay scales payable
to the members of the teaching and non-teaching
staff of aided diploma in pharmacy college and
unaided one.

¶70

17.This Court in a case of Kiran v. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.5150 of 2013 under
judgment dated 15.01.2018 has held that the members
of teaching staff of the junior college running

¶71

(13) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶72

diploma in pharmacy course are entitled for the
salary as per the 6th Pay Commission. The said
judgment it appears is confirmed by the Apex Court.
The Division Bench of this Court at its Principal
Seat at Bombay in Writ Petition No.8493 of 2004
under its judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 has
also held that the teaching and non-teaching staff
are entitled for the pay scales as fixed based on
the recommendations of A.I.C.T.E..

¶73

18.This takes us to the next question as to
the period for which the petitioners should be
given benefits. The writ petition is filed in the
year 2015. No plausible reason is given as to why
the petitioners have not moved the Court
immediately upon the introduction of the Government
Resolution in the year 2010. The respondent no.7
is unaided institution. Asking the unaided
institution to pay the arrears since 01.01.2006
would be putting a burden, which it may not
sustain, as is contended by the learned counsel for
respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶74

19.Considering the same, we grant the benefit
to petitioners of payment to be made as per 6th Pay
Commission in tune with the Government Resolution
dated 07.05.2010 and 20.08.2010 from 10.08.2012
viz. three years prior to the filing of the writ
petition.

¶75

(14) 12-wp-8390-2015

¶76

20.The respondent nos.6 and 7 shall make
payment to the petitioners accordingly henceforth
regularly and the arrears from 10.08.2012 till date
shall be paid within a period of three (03) months.
The payment already made shall be adjusted.

¶77

21.Rule accordingly made absolute in above

¶78

terms.

¶79

(R. G. AVACHAT) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶80

Devendra/December-18

Sanjay Rangnath Patare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Rangnath Patare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Vs Union of India and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Vijay Vasantrao Deshpande

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Girish Hanumant Thitte

Jitendra Dayaldas Fulwani Vs Chairman and Managing Director and Others of M.S.E.T.Co. Ltd.

Atmaram Babulal Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Bajirao Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others