1 W.P. No.4626-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4626 OF 2009 Mrs. Rita Rudramani Pandey & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioners Ms Shital Sonawane i/b Shri C.R.Sonawane for the Respondent No.4 Shri A.B.Vagyani AGP for Respondent No.1 & 2 Shri A.G.Kothari for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ Date: 26th July 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Petitioners in the above Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are inter alia seeking a declaration that they are entitled for salary and allowances at par with the Assistant Teachers working in private aided schools and as per the pay scales prescribed and revised by the State Government from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for brevity sake 2 W.P. No.4626-09 hereinafter referred to as the ‘MEPS Act’) and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 (for brevity sake hereinafter referred to as the ‘MEPS Rules’). The Petitioners have on the said basis sought a direction that all such benefits including the arrears from the date of initial appointment be given to them. The Respondent No.4 herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is also a public trust. The Respondent No.4 runs the Respondent No.6 school which are Government recognised but Unaided Primary School. The Petitioners were appointed in the said school in different years between 2003-2004. The Petitioners are in continuous service of the said school and the service record is clean and without any blemish. 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that the posts occupied by the Petitioners are substantive, permanent and were vacant at the relevant time and the Education Officer concerned has also approved the appointment of the Petitioners. The said schools being private school as defined under Section 2 (20) and 2(24) of the MEPS Act and, therefore, the MEPS Rules are applicable to the said school. The said MEPS act obligates the Director of Education to direct the management concerned to bring the pay and allowances applicable to the scale or the level provided by the MEPS Rules. Rule 7 of the MEPS Rules, inter alia lays down the scale of pay for the several teaching and non teaching staff in the Schools which shall be as specified in Schedule-C. The said Schedule-C inter alia 3 W.P. No.4626-09 prescribes the pay scales applicable to the teaching and non teaching posts in the private school. The grievance of the Petitioners is that though the Petitioners are entitled to be paid in accord with the said Schedule-C, the Petitioners are being paid consolidated salary which, according to them, is lesser than the prescribed scale under the Rules. The Petitioners have represented the management from time to time in respect of the pay scale applicable to them, however, the said requests have gone unheeded and the Petitioners are not being paid in accordance with the prescribed scale. The Petitioners are, therefore, constrained to file the instant petition claiming the substantive relief which has been referred to in the earlier part of this order. 4. On behalf of the Respondent No.5 management, though no affidavit in reply has been filed, it is sought to be contended that the Petitioners have not approached this Court with reasonable despatch and the claim which is made in the Petition being a money claim, the Petition filed as above is not maintainable. It is also sought to be contended on the behalf of the Respondent No.5 that the said school is run on “no loss no profit’ basis and is, therefore, not in a position to pay the teachers at the scale mentioned in the MEPS Rules. 5. In so far as the issue as regards payment of salaries in the pay scale provided under the MEPS Act is concerned, the said issue is no longer res integra and has been concluded by the Judgments of Division Benches of this Court 4 W.P. No.4626-09 amongst which is the Judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2688 of 2007 and companion matters which is dated 6-4-2010. The issue in the said Petition and the group of companion Writ Petitions was identical to the issue involved in the instant petition. The said Writ Petitions came to be allowed and the concerned managements were directed to pay salaries in terms of the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules. However, in so far as the arrears are concerned, the same were restricted to a period of three years from the date of filing of the Petition. Considering that in an identical fact situation, a Division Bench of this Court has allowed the petitions and issued directions as reproduced above, we have no hesitation in allowing the Writ petition and issuing the same directions as contained in the said order dated 6-4-2010. 6. It is clarified that the issue in the instant petition is restricted to only the claim of salary as per the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules and no other issue has been dealt with in this matter. We also clarify that the Petitioners would be paid salary from month to month as per their entitlement under the said Rules. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)