- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal And Others v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, is a registered public charitable trust that manages thirteen schools, including a residential public school in Ahmednagar District, Maharashtra. Respondents 4 – 17 are teachers employed in this unaided school. They filed Writ Petition No. 767 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission pay-scale revisions. The High Court held on 17 November 2000 that the Trust was liable to pay the revised salary and allowances from 1 May 1999.
The Trust appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, challenging its liability. The teachers cross-appealed, contending that the effective date should be 1 January 1996. The Supreme Court condoned delay, granted leave, heard both sides, and delivered the present order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an unaided private school run by a charitable trust is legally bound to implement the Fifth Pay Commission’s revised pay scales for its teachers under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the relevant Government Orders.
- If the school is so bound, from what date should the revised pay scales be made effective—1 January 1996 or 1 May 1999?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant Trust’s Arguments
- The school receives no government aid; therefore, Government Orders implementing the Fifth Pay Commission do not apply to it.
- The cited Government Order concerning pensions expressly excludes unaided institutions, illustrating that similar exclusion should apply to pay revisions.
- Maharashtra’s later resolution for unaided engineering, architectural, and pharmacy colleges implemented the Fifth Pay Commission only from 1 August 2000 after those institutions pleaded financial inability; by analogy, the Trust should not be liable for earlier arrears.
Respondent Teachers’ Arguments
- Once applicability of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations is acknowledged, the revisions must take effect from 1 January 1996—the date from which they were granted to other government and non-government employees.
- The Government itself treated arrears for 1996-1999 as provident-fund credits rather than cash payments, showing administrative feasibility for retrospective implementation.
- The High Court’s concern about the Trust’s inability to recover past fees should not override the statutory entitlement to revised pay from 1 January 1996.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court relied primarily on statutory provisions rather than case precedents:
- Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 makes the Act applicable to all private schools in Maharashtra, irrespective of whether they receive government aid.
- Under Section 16(2)(b) of the same Act, the State Government is empowered to prescribe scales of pay and allowances for employees of private schools by notification in the Official Gazette.
- The Government Order produced as Annexure R-3 explicitly states that revised pay scales would be implemented for teachers and non-teaching staff of both government and non-government schools. Consequently, the appellant’s status as an unaided institution does not exempt it.
- The Court rejected the analogy to pension orders and the later resolution for engineering colleges, noting that those instruments did not govern the present dispute.
- Regarding the effective date, the Court accepted the High Court’s rationale: the Government Order was issued in 1999, the school’s primary income is fees already collected from students, and retroactive recovery would be impracticable. This practical consideration justified limiting arrears to post-1 May 1999.
Holding and Implications
Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment in full.
Implications: The Trust must pay respondents their revised salary and allowances in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission from 1 May 1999, with three months allowed for full compliance. Costs are to be borne individually by the parties. The decision enforces existing statutory obligations but does not create new precedent beyond reaffirming that unaided private schools in Maharashtra remain subject to pay-scale regulations issued under the 1977 Act.
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted in special leave petitions.
3. All these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 17-11-2000 in Writ Petition No. 767 of 2000 of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
4. The appellant Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal in CAs Nos. 1049-50 of 2002 is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Trusts Act. The said Trust is running thirteen schools and Respondents 4 to 17 in these appeals are the teachers working in one of the unaided schools run by the appellant Trust. It is a residential public school with lodging and boarding facilities at Ahmed Nagar district, Maharashtra. It started to cater to the needs of the children of sugarcane factory workers and farmers. Respondents 4 to 17 filed Writ Petition No. 767 of 2000 before the High Court of Bombay claiming that they are entitled to the benefit of revision of pay scales under the relevant rules on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. The appellant management contended that they are not liable to pay the salary and allowances prescribed under the Fifth Pay Commission.
5. The matter was elaborately considered by the High Court and it was held that the appellant Trust is liable to pay salary and allowances on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 1-5-1999. The Trust has filed these appeals by special leave.
6. Respondents 4 to 17 have also filed a separate appeal contending that the High Court went wrong in holding that the pay should be revised with effect from 1-5-1999 but it should have been revised with effect from 1-1-1996. That part of the judgment is challenged by Respondents 4 to 17.
7. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Trust and the respondents.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Trust has contended that the Trust is not getting any aid from the Government and the teachers are not liable to be paid as per the government orders issued by the Government. It is contended that the government order issued is not applicable to the unaided institutions. The government order is produced as Annexure R-3 which says that keeping in view all the Central Government decisions about the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations Maharashtra State has appointed a Commission and that the revised pay scales will be implemented for the teachers and non-teaching staff of the government and non-government schools both primary/secondary/higher secondary and also teachers and non-teaching staff of the training colleges.
9. It may also be noticed that under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 3(1) says that the provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra, whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Section 16 further states that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and Section 16(2)(a) says that the State Government may by the Official Gazette prescribe minimum qualification for recruitment of employees of private schools (including its procedure); (b) their scales of pay and allowances. There is no dispute that these provisions of the Regulation Act are applicable to the appellant school.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant school is distinct as it is not receiving any aid. Even in the case of government order regarding pension, it is specifically stated that the government order is not applicable to the schools which are not getting aid from the Government. We do not think that the said government order has any application to the facts of this case. The Division Bench of the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant school was liable to pay the salary and allowances on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations and are bound by Maharashtra Act 3 of 1978.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondents 4 to 17 submitted that the High Court was not justified in holding that the salary and allowances should be paid from 1-5-1999. It is submitted that once it is accepted that the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation was applicable to the respondent teachers, it should be with effect from 1-1-1996 and as regards all other employees it has taken effect from 1-1-1996. The High Court has given a specific reason that the government order itself was issued in 1999 and the main source of income of the school was the fees collected from the students, therefore, the appellant Trust would not be in a position to recover any amount from the students who had already passed out of the school and hence they are not liable to pay the salary and allowances with effect from 1-1-1996. It may also be noticed that the Government while issuing the government order in 1999, the salary and allowances which had accrued for the period from 1996 to 1999, was not paid in cash but it was credited to the provident fund. Learned counsel for the appellant Trust also pointed out that the Government of Maharashtra, by a separate resolution, implemented the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations to the teaching and non-teaching staff of unaided engineering colleges including architectural and pharmacy colleges with effect from 1-8-2000. These colleges expressed their inability to pay the salary payable under the revision of pay scales with effect from 1-1-1996 and the Government was pleased to accept their application and implemented the same with effect from 1-8-2000. For the same reason the appellant Trust also was not bound to pay the salary with effect from 1-1-1996 and the reason given by the High Court was wholly correct.
12. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench. The appeals are dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.
13. We are told that Respondents 4 to 17 are not paid salary and allowances in accordance with the directions given by the High Court. In order to implement the judgment of the High Court, the appellant Trust is given three months' time from today to pay the salary and allowances to Respondents 4 to 17.
Alert