Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, in a batch of four connected writ petitions, addressed a preliminary issue whether questions raised regarding applicability of Pay Commission recommendations to employees of private schools and technical institutions should be referred to a larger Bench due to divergent views of coordinate benches. The lead petition, Writ Petition No.2871 of 2003, was filed by seven teachers employed in a private secondary school, seeking quashing of an order dated 5 June 2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik, rejecting approval of their appointments as secondary section teachers. They also sought directions for payment of arrears of salary, allowances, and post-retirement benefits as per the prescribed scale and the Fifth Pay Commission. The school management, in its affidavit, raised a preliminary legal objection contending that under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, the terms 'prescribed' and 'rules' have specific meanings and that scales of pay and allowances can be prescribed only by rules made under the Act, which require previous publication and laying before the State Legislature; consequently, Pay Commission recommendations could not be applied merely through a Government Resolution without amending Schedule C of the MEPS Rules. In Writ Petition No.1860 of 2005, teachers and non-teaching staff of a technology and engineering institute claimed that their service conditions were governed by the MEPS Act, MEPS Rules, and AICTE norms, and that the State Government had directed implementation of revised pay scales under Section 4(3) of the MEPS Act; they alleged non-payment of salary and allowances as per the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions. The management raised a similar preliminary objection, while the Joint Director of Technical Education filed a reply stating that a Government Resolution dated 18 December 1999 had directed all government, aided, and unaided institutes to implement the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, and that it was the management's responsibility to comply. Writ Petition No.1473 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.2324 of 2014 were also heard together, but their detailed facts were not extracted in the provided portion. The court heard the advocates on the limited issue whether the questions involved, in view of rival pleadings and divergent views of coordinate benches in more than one case, should be referred to a larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement. The Division Bench reserved judgment on 31 March 2022 and pronounced it on 14 June 2022; however, the final operative decision and reasoning on the reference issue were not included in the available text. The judgment excerpt focuses on the preliminary arguments and factual background up to paragraph six.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Private Schools - Pay Scale Revision - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Sections 2(17), 2(23), 4, 4(1), 4(3), 16, 16(4), Schedule C - The management contended that 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules and 'rules' mean rules made by the State Government under the Act; Section 4 empowers the State Government to prescribe terms and conditions of service and scales of pay, while Section 16 requires previous publication and laying of rules before the State Legislature; no amendment to Schedule C of the MEPS Rules was made. The court noted this preliminary objection that Pay Commission recommendations cannot be made applicable solely on the basis of a Government Resolution (Paras 3-6). B) Constitutional/Procedural Law - Reference to Larger Bench - Divergent Views of Coordinate Benches - Not applicable - The Division Bench heard arguments only on the limited issue whether the questions involved in the connected writ petitions, in view of rival pleadings and divergent views of Coordinate Benches in more than one case, should be referred to a larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement. The court reserved judgment on this preliminary issue on 31 March 2022 (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the questions involved in the writ petitions, in view of divergent views of Coordinate Benches, should be referred to a larger Bench; whether Pay Commission recommendations can be made applicable to private school employees through Government Resolution without complying with the statutory rule-making procedure under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
Law Points
- The term 'prescribed' under Section 2(17) of the MEPS Act means prescribed by rules
- the term 'rules' under Section 2(23) means rules made by the State Government
- Section 4 empowers the State Government to prescribe terms and conditions of service and scales of pay
- Section 16 requires previous publication and laying of rules before the State Legislature
- Pay Commission recommendations cannot be applied solely by Government Resolution without amending Schedule C of the MEPS Rules.
