BHARATIYA KAMGAR SENA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has averred that it is a staff union of employees working with respondent no. 2 institution and has sizeable number of workforce affiliated to it. Its objects and aims are to strive for the legitimate rights and privileges of its members and the employees working with the respondent no. 2 institution. The petitioner union, it is averred, is run by a managing committee and has a democratic set-up. It has approached this Court in a representative capacity to agigate for reliefs on behalf on behalf of the employees, who are affected by the issues involved in the present petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as under :. The Government of Maharashtra had implemented recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission for all public employees. These have also been implemented for non-aided colleges in the State of Maharashtra and resolution to that effect has been passed, which has been relied upon. A perusal of the said resolution, it is stated, would show that it encompasses all the employees of the Government and also includes staff working in non-aided colleges. As such the employees working with respondent no. 2 would be entitled to the benefits of said resolution. The petitioner through its controlling body raised the issue with respondent no. 2 - management and also entered into correspondence. The respondent no. 2 has, however, opted to maintain silence. They had also approached the Joint Director of Technical Education and apprised him of about inaction on the part of the respondent no. 2. It is their case that the authorities had repeatedly asked the respondent no. 2.-college to give the benefits to the employees of the college. Reliance has been placed on correspondence. It is then averred that non-aided colleges controlled by the State of maharashtra are expected to obey the directions of the Government. The respondent no. 2-college has, however, flouted these directions. The object of giving Fifth Pay Commission scales, it is averred, is to afford an environment where the serving staff could sustain the day-to-day living. The respondent no. 2. by failing to pay the pay scale and the other respondents failing to act, have acted arbitrarily and consequently the petitioner would be entitled for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission to the employees working with the respondent no. 2- institution. A further writ is prayed to direct the respondent nos. l and 3 to use coercive measures for compelling the respondent no. 2 to implement the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations to the employees working with the respondent no. 2 institution.

(3.) ANIL Shrikrishna Andhare, Deputy Director of Technical Education, has filed an affidavit. It is pointed out that the management of the institution is solely responsible not only for appointments as per norms laid down by A. I. C. T. E. but also for their salary, arrears, remuneration, bonus, gratuity etc. It is then pointed out that the Director of Technical education vide letter dated 29. 9. 1995 has directed the respondent no. 2 college to implement the pay-scale to both teaching and non-teaching staff. It is also pointed out that there is no Government resolution for implementing Fifth Pay Commission recommendations for non-teaching colleges of non-aided engineering colleges/polytechnics.