MAHADEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner teachers seek salary as per the pay scale prescribed by State Government through its resolution dated 21st May 2010 extending 6th wage revision to teaching and nonteaching staff of unaided non government i.e. private educational institutions. They are working with respondent no.7, which is an unaided private minority School. It is not in dispute that respondent no.5 is a minority educational society while respondent no.7 is the school which has been recognized by State Government as per the provisions of Secondary School Code as revised in 1979, (hereinafter referred to as "SS Code" for short). Permission to open school has been given on 17 August 1991 and as per clause 2 of that permission, management is obliged to pay wages to teachers in the pay scales as prescribed by State Government from time to time. It is in this background that on 23.04.2012, a notice for final disposal of writ petition came to be issued. Accordinglly, we have heard learned Advocate Rohit Deo with Advocate P.B. Patil for petitioners, learned AGP D.B. Patel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and learned Senior Advocate M.G. Bhangde with Advocate R.M. Bhangde for the respondent management and school finally, with consent by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.

(2.) Clause 2 in permission letter dated 17th August 1991 is binding on respondent management and school. Attention is also invited to rule 3.2, 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of SS code to urge that said provisions of are statutory in nature and binding on management/school. Petitioners further submit that none of them is paid as per government instructions in prescribed pay scale. Attention is invited to defense of management/school that State Government cannot prescribe pay scale as it will be violative of art. 30 of Constitution of India.

(3.) (T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2002 8 SCC 481) is relied upon heavily by petitioners to point out how 11 questions have been framed by Hon'ble Apex Court therein to resolve such challenge and are answered. Answer recorded against question 5 -C is stated to be material for deciding this controversy. (Frank Anthony Public School Employees Assn. v. Union of India, 1987 AIR(SC) 311) and earlier judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble 9 Judges in case of Ahmedabad St. Xavier s College Society v. State of Gujarat, 1974 1 SCC 717 are also relied upon to demonstrate significance of terms and conditions of recognition and affiliation in this connection. Observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in (P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2005 5 Supreme 544) are also pressed into service by advocate Deo. Satimbla Sharma v. St Paul s Senior Secondary School, 2011 13 SCC 760 is cited to demonstrate how it considers entirely different scenario and therefore, cannot be used against petitioners. Three judgments delivered by the Delhi are also placed on the record urging that those judgments distinguish the consideation in Satimbla Sharma v. St Paul's Senior Secondary School and hence, said precedent, in present facts, is of no assistance to management. Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court Shri Valmiki J. Mehta has delivered these judgments on 13th February 2013, 14th February 2013 and 1 st May 2013 in WP (civil) 8748 of 2010, 12132/2009 and 1104 of 2011 respectively with connected matters. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sindhi Education Society v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2010 8 SCC 49 is also relied upon by him.