SHOBHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, we are concerned with the right of an Assistant Teacher (who is working in respondent No.5 - unaided school) to get increase in pay scale as per recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission. The issue involved is whether such teacher of unaided school is entitled to get enhancement (just at par with aided school teacher) without there being an amendment in the pay scale prescribed under Schedule 'C' of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get the benefit of such enhancement (without amendment being carried out). She relied upon similar benefit given (to her colleague from respondent No.4 - Sanstha) as per the judgment dated 15/06/2012 of this Court in case of Umashankar s/o Ramsaran Singrol Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (W.P. No.1341/2012) (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari and M.T. Joshi, JJ.) It is true that the respondent No.4 - Sanstha has remained absent in that petition. The petitioner has an argument to advance to support the applicability of these observations (in case of Umashankar Singrol) to her case. She relied upon the principle of res judicata.

(3.) According to her, those observations partake the character of "judgment in rem". That is to say the observations are applicable to concerned parties as well as to outside world. She gets support (for this proposition) from the observations of this Court in Civil Application No.1297/2012 in the judgment dated 22/07/2016 (Coram: Smt. Vasanti Naik and Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.). This was a review application preferred by present respondent No.4 - Sanstha. This Court was pleased to set aside only those directions to pay 9% interest per annum on arrears of enhancement as per Sixth Pay Commission. While discharging the Sanstha from that responsibility, this Court gave the following reasonings:-