Writ Petition No. 11091 of 2010,Writ Petition Nos. 8780 of 2010,Writ Petition Nos. 2035 of 2011,Writ Petition Nos. 4443 of 2009

10th February, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S.R. CHOUKIDAR Mr. S.S. CHOUDHARI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. K.B. CHOUDHARIMr. ALOK SHARMAMr. K.M. SURYAWANSHIMr. V.D. SALUNKE Mr. NIMBALKARMr. R.V. GHUGEMr. V.P. LATANGE

Cases Cited:
Mrs. Satimbla Sharma & Ors. Vs. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School and Ors., 2011(5) ALL MR 927 (S.C.) =2011 AIR SCW 4643 [Para 20]
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. Adhiyaman Education and Research Institution & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 104 [Para 21]
K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. Vs. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 295 [Para 22]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 355 [Para 24]
Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3724 [Para 24]
Fee Regulatory Committee Vs. Kalol Institute of Management and Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 592 [Para 24]

JUDGMENT

T.V. NALAWADE, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matters are heard finally.

2.All the petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In the first three petitions, the petitioners have claimed relief of direction against the State Government, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded and All India Council for Technical Education ("A.I.C.T.E." for short) that they should compel the Management of Mahatma Gandhi Mission, an institution, which is running engineering colleges at Aurangabad and Nanded, to implement the recommendations made by Pay Commissions regarding pay scales. The last petition is filed against the State Government, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and University Grant Commission for relief of direction that they should compel the Management of Mahatma Gandhi Mission, and its Deemed University, which is running a Medical College at Aurangabad, to implement the recommendations of Pay Commission regarding the pay scales. As the two engineering colleges and the medical college are being run by the same institution and as the same points are involved in all the petitions, they are being decided together. The colleges and the deemed university are not receiving grants-in-aid from the Government.

3.Writ Petition No. 11091/2010 is filed by teaching and non teaching staff of engineering college run by the respondent No. 6 Institution in Aurangabad. Petitioners No. 2 to 59 are members of teaching staff and the remaining petitioners are members of non teaching staff. Petitioner No. 1 is said to be a Union formed by them. In this petition, relief is claimed that the Management should be compelled to implement the 6th Pay Commission Report, both in respect of teaching and non teaching staff. The teaching staff has claimed one more relief of direction that the Management should pay the arrears in respect of the implementation of 5th Pay Commission Report also (for the period from 1.1.1996 to April 2001). During the arguments, the advocate for the teaching staff submitted that the relief in respect of arrears of 5th Pay Commission Report is not pressed. This college is affiliated to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (respondent No. 5).

4.Writ Petition No. 8780/10 is filed by non teaching staff of Engineering College, Nanded, run by Mahatma Gandhi Mission at Nanded. This college is affiliated with Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. In this petition the non teaching staff has prayed for a relief of direction that the Management should implement the Reports of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions and it should give all consequential benefits to the non teaching staff.

5.The petitioner from Writ Petition No. 2035/2011 was working as 'store keeper' from October 1988 to 20.6.2006 in the Engineering College, Nanded run by Mahatma Gandhi Mission. He left the job by putting in resignation. He has prayed for a relief of implementation of Reports of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions. He has prayed for a relief like direction to the Management to pay arrears of salary, if the reports are implemented. He has also prayed for a relief of direction that the Management should pay the gratuity amount accordingly. He has also prayed for direction that the Management should pay salary in respect of encashment of leave of 180 days which was in his account when he left the college.

6.Writ Petition No. 4443/2009 is filed by non teaching staff of respondent No.7, a Deemed Medical University run at Aurangabad by the same Management. The petitioners have prayed for relief of implementation of Report of 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996 and also for consequential benefits.

7.For the implementation of the Report of 5th Pay Commission, the non teaching staff from Writ Petition No. 11091/2010 had filed Writ Petition No. 333/2002 in this Court in the past. The petition was allowed by this Court and the direction was given to authorities to see that the Management implements the Report of 5th Pay Commission. The decision given by this Court was challenged by filing two Special Leave Petitions and the Apex Court has dismissed both the S.L.Ps. In Writ Petition No. 11091/2010 the Management has filed affidavit in reply and it is admitted that in view of the directions given in Writ Petition No. 333/2002, the Report of 5th Pay Commission was implemented by it. However, the Management has contended that for the implementation of the Report of 5th Pay Commission, there was Government Resolution dated 18.12.1999 of the State Government. It is contended that the State Government has not given such specific directions to implement the recommendations made by 6th Pay Commission. It is also contended that as the Management is not receiving grants-in-aid, it is not bound to implement the Pay Commission's Report. It is contended that though Government Resolutions are issued on 19.8.2009 etc. in respect of the implementation of the Report of 6th Pay Commission, the G.R. is applicable to only the institutions and colleges receiving grants-in-aids and the G.R. is in respect of teaching staff only. It is contended that the G.R. dated 7.10.2009 issued by the State Government is in respect of non teaching staff for the implementation of 6th Pay Commission's Report, but it is also applicable to the colleges receiving grants-in-aid. The Management has admitted in this petition that University has issued a direction in letter dated 29.8.2009 to implement the Reports of 6th Pay Commission, both in respect of teaching and non teaching staff and it is informed that the G.Rs. are applicable to them also. It is contended that this letter of the University is unwarranted.

8.In Writ Petition No. 8780/2010 the Management has contended that the basic pay suggested by 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions is being given to non teaching staff of the college from Nanded. It is contended that as the Management is not receiving grants-in-aid, it is not in a position to implement the Reports in entirety. Other contentions made in the affidavit in reply are similar to those made in reply filed in Writ Petition No. 11091/2010.

9.In Writ Petition No. 2035/2011 the Management has contended that as per Rule 39 (4) of the Maharashtra Non- Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984, ("Standard Code Rules 1984" for short) the encashment in respect of only 120 days can be given and it has been given to the petitioner. It is further contended that the gratuity amount is also given and the receipts are issued by the petitioner accordingly. The other contentions are similar to those made in aforesaid two petitions.

10.In Writ Petition No. 2035/2011 it is contended by the State Government (Respondents No. 1 and 2) that the State has not taken policy decision in respect of the implementation of the Report of 5th Pay Commission prepared for non teaching staff working in unaided colleges. However, it is contended that the college is bound by the norms laid down by A.I.C.T.E.

11.In Writ Petition No. 4443/2009 the University Grant Commission ("U.G.C." for short) has contended that in the letter dated 27.7.1998 the Central Government has informed to all the States that Central Government and U.G.C. have taken decision to revise the pay scales of teachers working in University and colleges to attract, retain talent in teaching profession. It is contended that discretion is given to the State Government to introduce the pay scales suggested by 5th Pay Commission.

12.During arguments also, it was submitted for the Management that there were specific directions with regard to implementation of the Report of 5th Pay Commission in respect of teaching staff and so the directions were followed. It was submitted that as there are no such specific instructions for implementation of the pay scales suggested by 6th Pay Commission, there is no question of giving pay scales to both the teaching and non teaching staff. It was submitted that as there was executive instructions from the Government in the past, the decision given in Writ Petition No. 333/2002 cannot be used in the present matters for issuing directions in respect of the implementation of Report of 6th Pay Commission.

13.In reply filed by the Officer of the State Government in Writ Petition No. 2035/2011, a statement is made that the State has not taken a policy decision and so unaided institutions are not directed to implement 5th Pay Commission's Report to give benefits to non teaching staff. In view of these submissions and circumstances, it has become necessary to refer some documents produced by both the sides and also the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 333/2002.

14.A copy of letter dated 9.10.1998 sent by Government of India to A.I.C.T.E. shows that the Central Government had accepted recommendations made by A.I.C.T.E. to revise the pay scales of teaching staff. Another copy of letter sent by the Central Government on 9.10.1998 to all the State Governments shows at para No. 9 that the scheme of revision of pay scales was to apply to all the teachers of degree level technical institutions, colleges and technical faculties of universities, which are covered under All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ("A.I.C.T.E. Act" for short). A copy of a letter issued by A.I.C.T.E. on 15.3.2000 to all the State Governments is placed on record and it shows that the decision was to be taken by the State Governments, whether to apply the scheme or not. The letter shows that the State Government could have applied the scheme to the institutions and colleges, who were receiving financial assistance from the Government as on 1.1.1996. In such cases, the Central Government was to give financial assistance to the State Government for the period 1.1.1996 to 1.4.2000. The pay scales were to be given with effect from 1.1.1996. The letter shows that it was open to other institutions, who were not mentioned in the letter of Central Government dated 9.10.1998, to apply the scheme to such institutions, who were not getting financial assistance from the Central Government. It is already mentioned that in the letter dated 9.10.1998 of the Central Government had informed that scheme was to be applied to all colleges and institutions, which are covered under A.I.C.T.E. Act. Thus, the State Government was to receive financial assistance from the Central Government in respect of the colleges and institutions, receiving grants-in-aid, but the scheme was to apply to all colleges and institutions covered under A.I.C.T.E. Act. Though no record of response given by the State Government at that time in this regard is produced, it is not disputed that for teaching staff, the scales suggested at that time were accepted by the State and the Management has also admitted this fact.

15.A copy of State Government's G.R. dated 12.8.2009 shows that Central Government had issued a letter dated 31.12.2008 and it had instructed the State Government to implement the revision of the pay scale as suggested by the Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006. In response to this letter of Central Government, the G.R. came to be issued. The G.R. shows that it applies to teachers of all universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions receiving grants-in-aid, coming under the purview of the State Legislature through the Department of Higher Technical Education, Maharashtra and covered by Rules of U.G.C. However, at Clause No. 8-E in this G.R. also it is made clear that unaided colleges will not be entitled for financial assistance from the State Government. Thus, the revised scales prepared for teaching staff and approved by A.I.C.T.E., which came in effect on 1.1.1996 and then 1.1.2006, are applied by the State Government for the teachers of the institutions and colleges, which are covered by A.I.C.T.E. Act.

16.So far as non teaching staff working in universities, institutions and colleges from Maharashtra is concerned, in G.R. dated 11.2.1980 the State Government had first time prepared hierarchical structure for clerks and administrative staff. This structure was to be applied to affiliated colleges and the pay scales were also fixed accordingly. The aforesaid Standard Code Rules 1984 prepared for non teaching staff by the State Government show that they are made to determine the terms and conditions of service of non teaching employees working in non agricultural universities and affiliated colleges. Rules 3, 16 and 17 can be referred to see as to who are covered under these Rules. Rule 3 provides for classification, appointment and recruitment of non teaching staff. Rule 16 provides that the employee in service of the University or the Colleges shall, unless otherwise directed, be entitled to receive the pay in the prescribed time-scale of pay from the commencement of the service up to the cessation of the service in the University or the College. The Rule further provides that time-scale for various posts both in the University and the Colleges shall be as prescribed by Government and may be revised by the Government from time to time. Thus, for universities, institutions and affiliated colleges, who are under the State Legislature, classes of employees are created by the State Government and the pay structure is also prepared. The power is with the State Government to fix the pay scales and also to revise the pay scales from time to time.

17.A copy of G.R. dated 4.2.1999 issued by the State Government under section 8 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 shows that from 1.1.1996 the State Government provided Standard Code of 1999 and it made changes in the Standard Code Rules of 1984. The pay scales came to be revised for non teaching staff of non agricultural universities of Maharashtra and also for non teaching staff working in affiliated colleges and recognized institutions. A copy of notification issued by the State Government on 7.10.2009 shows that another revision of pay scales was done with effect from 1.1.2006. This time it was specifically mentioned that the G.R. was issued for non teaching staff working in universities and colleges receiving grants-in-aid from the Government. The aforesaid G.Rs. and Standard Code Rules 1984 show that both aided and unaided colleges must have hierarchical structure of clerical staff/administrative staff as provided in Standard Code Rules. In view of Rules 16 (2) of Rules of 1984, it further follows that the time-scale of such staff and allowances shall be as prescribed by the State Government and as revised by the State Government from time to time. After every 10 years the State Government revises the pay scales and G.Rs. are issued in that regard. Though the notification or G.Rs. of year 2009 now cover the aided institutions, they are for the purpose of showing financial liability of the State Government. As in view of Rule 16 (2) of Rules of 1984, such policy decision changes the pay scales of different classes of staff provided in 1984 Rules, the scales automatically apply to unaided institutions also, though they are not specifically mentioned in the G.R. These institutions are also covered under the State Legislature and so they are bound by the policy decision taken by the State in this regard.

18.The aforesaid record and Rules show that there is no force in the contentions made by the Management that there are no Rules or executive instructions with regard to implementation of the pay scales suggested by the Pay Commissions. Let us now see the defenses taken by the Management in Writ Petition No. 333/2002. The said petition was filed for implementation of Report of 5th Pay Commission and the Management had taken the following defenses :-

(a)Government had issued G.R. in respect of teaching staff only and not in respect of non teaching staff.

(b)A.I.C.T.E. had also not issued any direction in respect of non teaching staff.

(c)The employees have no legal right to claim the implementation of Report of 5th Pay Commission, and

(d)The Management is not a State and so no directions can be issued under Article 226 of Constitution of India against it.

19.In the judgment of Writ Petition No. 333/02 at para Nos. 11 and 12, this Court (Coram : F.I. Rebello & N.V. Dabholkar, JJ.) has observed that as the recognition is given to such colleges by A.I.C.T.E. and as such colleges are also affiliated with universities, the Management is bound to comply with the terms and conditions of recognition and affiliation. Affidavit on behalf of A.I.C.T.E. was filed in Writ Petition No. 333/2002 and the Court also considered the conditions imposed by A.I.C.T.E. in letter dated 18.6.2001 when the recognition was continued. Specific direction was given to the College that it should implement the report of 5th Pay Commission in respect of revision of pay scales, both in favour of teaching and non teaching staff. In para No. 13 of the judgment, this Court had referred the Rules framed under Standard Code of 1984 and 1999, mentioned above and observed that the Management is duty bound as affiliated college to implement the pay scales. In the said petition, directions were given by this Court to A.I.C.T.E. and University to see that the pay scale proposed by 5th Pay Commission is implemented by Management. Similar objections are taken by the Management in the present proceedings in addition to other objections which are mentioned already. The decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 333/2002 has become final as both the S.L.Ps. filed by the Management, challenging the decision of this Court, came to be dismissed.

20.For the Management one case reported as 2011 AIR SCW 4643 : [2011(5) ALL MR 927 (S.C.)] (Mrs. Satimbla Sharma & Ors. Vs. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School and Ors.) was cited. The facts of the reported case show that staff of minority school from Himachal Pradesh had prayed for similar directions and they wanted the relief of pay parity. The Apex Court held that under Article 39 (d) of Constitution of India, the obligation to ensure the equal pay for equal work is on the State and unless there are statutory provisions or executive instructions which cast obligation on school to ensure pay parity, such relief cannot be given. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition. In Maharashtra, for non teaching staff working in unaided colleges, there are the Rules of 1984 made in this regard.

21.So far as teaching staff is concerned, the Apex Court has discussed the effect of A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987 made by the Parliament on the powers of the State Government and Universities in the case reported as (1995) 4 SCC page 104 (State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. Adhiyaman Education and Research Institution & Ors). In this case, the Apex Court has considered the powers of the Parliament in view of Entry No. 66 of List No. I, the powers of State Legislature under Entry No. 11 of List No. II and the powers of both in respect of Entry No. 25 of List No. III of 7th Scheduled of Constitution of India. The Apex Court has referred Articles 246, 248 and 254 of Constitution of India and it has laid down that in the field of technical education and for establishing standard of institutions of technical education, the law made by the Parliament will prevail. A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987 is made by the Parliament and so, the directions given by the Central Government and A.I.C.T.E. to the Engineering Colleges, which are recognized by A.I.C.T.E. need to be complied with. Under section 10 of this Act, A.I.C.T.E. has powers to lay down norms and standards for courses, staff pattern and staff qualifications, fixing norms and guidelines for charging fees etc. A.I.C.T.E. has also the power with regard to giving recognition and withdrawal of recognition to such colleges and institutions. The documents already referred show that the State Government issued G.R. dated 10.8.2009 on the basis of letter of Government of India dated 31.12.2008 and took decision to implement the scheme of staff pattern for the teachers and the scales proposed by the Central Government (6th Pay Commission). The Management in the present cases got recognition from A.I.C.T.E. and the engineering colleges are affiliated to the aforesaid two universities. Undertakings were obtained from the colleges that they will comply with the directions given by the Universities and A.I.C.T.E. and as the decision in regard to the matter in issue is to be taken by the authority, this policy decision is binding on the Management and it is bound to implement the revision of pay scales and the hierarchical structure of staff prepared by the authorities. Thus, in case of both teaching and non teaching staff, the Management is bound to apply hierarchical structure of the teaching and non teaching staff prepared by the A.I.C.T.E. and the State Government respectively and it is also bound to apply the pay scales applied by the State Government.

22.The Management has contended that it cannot afford to implement the aforesaid pay scales as it does not receive grants-in-aid from the Government. In view of the Rules and directions already mentioned, this contention of Management cannot be considered. Further in section 10 (n) of A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987, commercialisation of technical education cannot be allowed to be done. The State Government constitutes Fee Regulatory Committee ["F.R.C." for short] for fixing the fees of students of such professional courses and the law prepared in that regard is being discussed at other place. While fixing the fees, such Committee is expected to consider the salaries and allowances required to be paid by the Management to teaching and non teaching staff. Due to this reason also, the contention with regard to affordability of the Management cannot be considered. There are other reasons also like the maintaining the standards of the course. In the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 295 (K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. Vs. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr.) while considering similar claim of the employees, the Apex Court held that in such a claim, there is an element of public interest and so Article 226 of Constitution of India needs to be used in such cases.

23.Writ Petition No. 333/2002 was decided on 12.12.2003 and S.L.Ps. came to be dismissed on 24.10.2005. After the decision given in the Writ Petition by this Court and the dismissal of the S.L.Ps. filed by the Management, there was compromise between the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 333/2002 and the Management. A copy of compromise document dated 30.1.2006 is produced on record and it shows that the employees from that petition waived the right to recover arrears of pay with regard to period from 1.1.1996 to December 2000. Clause (3) of this document shows that the Management gave undertaking that it would implement pay revisions as and when applied by the State Government to its employees. In view of this agreement also the Management cannot now contend that it cannot afford to implement the new pay scale and it cannot be compelled to implement the new pay scale in favour of the petitioners from Writ Petition No. 333/2002, who have filed the present first petition viz. Writ Petition No. 11091/2010.

24.For deciding the remaining petitions, the law developed by the Apex Court with regard to the rights of private institutions to determine and recover fees from the students needs to be kept in mind. In the case reported as AIR 2003 SC 355 (T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.), the Apex Court had first discussed the rights of unaided private institutions in this regard. In the case reported as AIR 2003 SC 3724 (Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.), the Apex Court gave clarification in respect of some observations made by the Apex Court in supra. In the clarification, the Apex Court has observed that though the private institution has right to fix its own fee structure, there can be no profiteering and capitation fees cannot be charged, surplus/profit generated must be only for benefit/use of that educational institution. The Apex Court gave direction to the State Government to constitute Committees headed by retired High Court Judge to approve/fix fee structure. The observations further show that the Committee is expected to keep in mind at the time of fixing fees, the infrastructure facilities available, the investment made, salaries paid to the teachers and other staff by the institution. In one more case reported as (2011) 10 SCC 592 (Fee Regulatory Committee Vs. Kalol Institute of Management and Ors.), this problem was again considered by the Apex Court. In that case the Management wanted the revision of fee structure as there was the obligation of implementation of pay scales suggested by Pay Commission after the revision. Gujrat High Court gave direction to F.R.C. to revise the fee structure in view of the needs of the institution. Only due to the provisions of the Act, which prevented revision for the period of three years and in the interest of the students, the Apex Court allowed to go for revision of fee structure after the prescribed period. In view of the existence of such Committee in Maharashtra and the decision given already by this Court in Writ Petition No. 333/2002 on 12.12.2003, it was necessary for the Management to get the fees fixed accordingly, in anticipation of liability to pay revised pay scales from the year 2006. For these reasons, this Court holds that the Management needs to be compelled to implement the pay scales suggested by 6th Pay Commission, which are applied by the State Government with effect from 1.1.2006.

25.In Writ Petition No. 11091/2010 teaching staff has prayed for recovery of the amount in respect of the scales fixed by 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996. It can be said that the teachers came very late for this relief and due to latches, such relief cannot be given to them. Further, it would not be proper to allow the Management to recover the amount in respect of arrears of salary for the period from 1.1.1996 to 1.1.2006 in respect of these teachers in future from new students. So, the Writ Petition No. 11091/2010 can be allowed for compelling the Management to implement new pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006.

26.In Writ Petition No. 8780/2010, it is the case of Management that it has implemented the pay scales of 6th Pay Commission for Engineering College at Nanded with effect from 1.11.2010. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that it was necessary for the Management to anticipate the liability in this regard and to take necessary steps for fixing the fees. It needs to be presumed that the Management must have taken such steps. Some record is produced in respect of Medical College from Aurangabad and it shows that the Management had been taking such steps and it has been making representations to F.R.C. In any case, in view of the binding nature of the directions given to the Management in this regard, the Management is bound to implement the pay scales. So the similar relief can be given to the non teaching staff working in Engineering College, Nanded and the Management can be compelled to implement the pay scales suggested by 6th Pay Commission, as applied by the State Government with effect from 1.1.2006.

27.The petitioner from Writ Petition No. 2035/2011 has claimed relief in respect of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commission Reports. For the reasons already given, this Court holds that the petitioner can be given benefits only in respect of the Report of 6th Pay Commission and he would be getting the relief automatically, as this Court is granting relief in Writ Petition No. 8780/2010. His pay needs to be fixed accordingly as he retired in June 2006 and for the period 1.1.2006 to the date of of retirement, he will be entitled to get the arrears. The gratuity amount needs to be determined accordingly. This Court has gone through the Rule 39 of the Standard Code Rules 1984. The leave encashment in respect of 180 days under this Rule is possible when the employee retires. In any case, the record produced show that the Management has given the leave encashment in respect of 120 days of earned leave. In view of this Rule, this Court holds that no relief as claimed in this regard can be given to the petitioner.

28.Writ Petition No. 4443/2009 was filed on 24.6.2009 and the petitioners are non teaching staff of Medical College, Deemed University. They have prayed for implementation of the recommendations made by 5th Pay Commission with regard to revision of pay scales and this pay scale was to come in force on 1.1.1996. In this petition, the Management has taken the defence that it is now deemed university and so it is not within the purview of F.R.C. [f'k{k.k 'kqYd lferh], which the State Government constitutes. This Court holds that the contention of the Management cannot be accepted. The provisions of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 and the documents produced show that the recognition is given to this College even as deemed university by U.G.C. U.G.C. has prepared hierarchical structure for teaching staff and it has asked to adopt the new revision of pay scales. Under section 3 and 3 (f) of this Act, the deemed university is to be treated as University. Thus, the institution, in the new form, is also bound by the directions of Apex Body like U.G.C. and whenever such revision takes place, such institution is expected to amend its rules, statues etc. to incorporate the provisions of the scheme of revision of pay scales. In this petition only the non teaching staff is involved and this Court has no hesitation to observe that for non teaching staff, such institution will have to accept the policy of the State Government. Though this can be position of law, the record produced shows that the Management had implemented recommendations of 5th Pay Commission in the year 2005-2006 and on that basis, the fee structure came to be fixed by F.R.C. on 20.12.2006. Thus, the petition to implement the pay scales, which were to be given from 1.1.1996, came to be filed on 24.6.2009 and so far the reasons of latches and aforesaid reasons, the relief cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners. This relief would create burden for new students and so granting of such relief will not be proper. There is one more technical reason in this case for which such relief cannot be given. Schemes of revision of pay scales as mentioned above show that the scheme can be applied to permanent staff working in the pay scale. At para 8 of the petition, it is the case of the petitioners that till the year 2005 they were working on consolidated pay and they were brought in pay scale first time in the year 2005. Thus, the pay scale could not have been implemented in their favour for the previous period.

29.In view of the discussion above, we pass the following order.

ORDER

(I) Writ Petition Nos. 11091/2010, 8780/2010 and 2035/2011 are partly allowed with no order as to costs.

(II) The State Government, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and A.I.C.T.E. are hereby directed to see that the respondent, Management of respondent No. 7 College from Writ Petition No. 11091/2010, implements the pay scales suggested by 6th Pay Commission as applied by the Maharashtra Government to the teaching and non teaching staff with effect from 1.1.2006.

(III) In Writ Petition No. 8780/2010 the State Government, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded and A.I.C.T.E. are hereby directed to see that the pay scales suggested by 6th pay Commission as applied by the Maharashtra Government are implemented by respondent No. 3 Management of Mahatma Gandhi Mission's College of Engineering Nanded, for non teaching staff with effect from 1.1.2006.

(IV) If the respondent Management fails to implement the recommendations in respect of application of pay scales, the State Government, respective Universities and A.I.C.T.E. are to take steps for withdrawal of affiliation given by the respective Universities and withdrawal of recognition given by A.I.C.T.E.

(V) The State Government, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded and A.I.C.T.E. are hereby directed to see that the respondent Management from Writ Petition No. 2035/2011 fixes pay of the petitioner of this petition as per the revision of the pay scales applied by the State Government with effect from 1.1.2006. In this case, the petitioner will be entitled only to get the arrears of pay and the gratuity calculated accordingly for the period from 1.1.2006 till the date of resignation. The Management is entitled to deduct the amount which is already paid to the petitioner.

(VI) The aforesaid orders be carried out within three months from today.

(VII) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms in Writ Petition Nos. 11091/2010, 8780/2010 and 2035/2011.

(VIII) Writ Petition No. 4443/2009 stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. Rule is discharge in this petition.

(IX) In view of aforesaid order, Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.

After pronouncement of this judgment, learned counsel Mr. Nimbalkar prays for staying the operation of the judgment and order for a period of four four weeks for approaching the Apex Court. The said request has been opposed by learned counsel Shri. Choukidar. We suspend the operation of the judgment and order for a period of four weeks.

Ordered accordingly.