-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4330 OF 2002 1. Vasudev Hari Sarode, age 35 years, ) occupation service, r/o Renuka Chouk, Lassi Pada, ) Bk. No. 1074, Room No.6, Ulhasnagar-3, Dist.Thane ) 2. Nivarutti Sukadeo Wagh, age 43 years, Occ. Service ) r/o Manera Road, Section 25, Behind Ganpati Temple, ) Ulhasnagar-4, Dist. Thane. ) 3. Dinesh Nanak Singh, age 32 years, Occ. Service, ) r/o E.S.T. Hospital Quarters, Ulhasnagar-2, Dist.Thane ) 4. Dattatray Bhanudas Patil, age 35 years, Occ. Service ) r/o Metal Nagar, Near Nagdev Mandir, Ambernath, ) Dist. Thane )..Petitioners versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, ) School Education Department, Mantralaya, ) Mumbai-400 032 ) 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, ) Nashik ) 3. The Education Officer (Secondary) ) Thane Zilla Parishad, Thane. ) 4. Chairman/Secretary, Jhulelal Trust, Premchand ) Pessumal Marg, Ulhasnagar-2, Dist. Thane ) 5. The Principal (Secondary) Jhulelal Trust School ) Premchand Pessumal Marg, Ulhasnagar-2, Dist. Thane ) 6. The Administrative Officer, Ulhasnagar Municipal ) School Board, Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane ) -2- 7. The Principal (Primary) Jhulelal Trust School, ) Premchand Pessumal Marg, Ulhasnagar-2 ) Dist. Thane ).Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioners. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.G. Kothari with Mr. J.S. Chandnani for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 11, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. SAVANT, J.) The petitioners have filed the above petition 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 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 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the MEPS Act”) and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)Rules, 1981 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the MEPS Rules”). The petitioners have, on the said basis, sought a direction that all such benefits to the petitioners including the arrears from the date of initial appointment be given to them. -3- 2. The facts in a nutshell can be stated thus:- 3. The respondent No.4 herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is also a Public Trust. Respondent No.4 runs respondent Nos. 5 and 7 Schools which are Government recognised but unaided Primary and Secondary Schools. The petitioners were appointed in the said Schools in different years between the period 1992 and 1994. The petitioners are in continuous service of the said schools and the service record is clean and without any blemish. 4. 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 Schools as defined under Section 2 (20) and 2 (24) of the MEPS Act and, therefore, the MEPS Rules are applicable to the said Schools. 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 scales 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 prescribes the pay scales applicable to the teaching and non- teaching posts in the private schools. The grievance of the petitioners is that -4- 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 scales under the Rules. Though the petitioners have from time to time represented to the management in respect of the pay scales, the said requests have gone unheeded and the petitioners are not being paid in accordance with the prescribed scale. The petitioners have, therefore, constrained to file the instant petition claiming the substantive relief which has been referred to in the earlier part of this order. 5. On behalf of respondent No.4 management, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. The burden of the song in the said affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.4 is 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 stated in the said affidavit that respondent No.4 being an organization which is running the Schools on no profit no loss basis is not in a position to bear the burden of paying the teachers at the scales mentioned in the MEPS Rules. It is on the said grounds that the petition is sought to be opposed. The respondent No.4 has also filed additional affidavit. 6. In so far as the issue as regards payment of salaries in the time scale of teachers of recognised schools under the MEPS Act is concerned, the said -5- issue is no longer res integra and has been concluded by the judgments of Division Benches of this Court amongst which is the judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2688 of 2007 and companion matters which is dated 6th April, 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 the 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 reproduced above, we have no hesitation in allowing the above petition and issuing the same directions as contained in the order dated 6th April, 2010. 7. However, in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it appears that during the pendency of the above petition, petitioner No.1 has been appointed on 1st December, 1993 in the Secondary Section of respondent No.5 School, which is an aided School, therefore, it would have to be presumed that petitioner No.1 is being paid salary according to the pay scale in the said Section. However, petitioner No.1 would be entitled to arrears, if any, upto his appointment in the Secondary Section i.e. 1st December, 2003. The general directions as regards the arrears restricted to a period of three years from the -6- date of filing of the petition would also be applicable to him. 8. In so far as the other petitioners are concerned, they would be entitled to be paid in terms of our directions as above from July, 2010. Needless to say that the issue in the above petition is being restricted to only the claim of salary as per the MEPS Act and the MEPS Rules. It is clarified that the other objections, as stated in the additional affidavit dated 20th March, 2009 of the respondent-management, have not been considered by this Court. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.