: 1 : wp.1025.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.1025 OF 2011 Arvind Falsamkar & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. Andheri Education Society & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Bharat Joshi I/b Khan Javed Akhtar for the Petitioners Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Gautam Patel & S.G. Surana I/b C.N. Gole for the Respondent No.1 Ms.Sindha Shreedharan, AGP, for Resp. Nos.16, 17 & 18 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The first Petitioner claims to be the Chairman of the former Parents Teachers Association and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents. The petitioners have brought in question the hike in fees effected by the respondent school run by Respondent No.1 Andheri Education Society. The Circular dated 9.12.2010 has been issued by the Headmistress of Sheth Madhavdas Amersey High School (Primary Section) revising the tuition fees, term fees and admission fees. The tuition fees has been fixed at Rs.700/- per month, the term fees has been fixed at Rs.700/- per term, and the admission fees at Rs.700/- at the time of admission only. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the tuition fees was : 2 : wp.1025.2011 Rs.450/- per month and it has been revised to Rs.700/- per month. It was alleged that the procedure prescribed has not been followed inasmuch as there was no meeting of the Parents Teachers Association while revising the fees. However, this submission is not supported from the record and we are satisfied that the due procedure had been followed in revising the fees. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners then invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 21.5.2010 in support of his contention that even if the revision of fees is done by the management, the increase in fees cannot be more than 50% of the existing fees and to elaborate this point he submitted that if the earlier fees was Rs.450/- per month, the revision permissible could be upto Rs.675/- per month and in the impugned circular, the management has increased it to Rs.700/- per month. In support of these arguments, he invited our attention to para 3 of the said Government Resolution. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the G.R. Dated 21.5.2010 as under: ß3- lgkO;k osru vk;ksxkP;k f'kQkj'khuqlkj lq/kkjhr osruJs.khizek.ks deZpk&;kauk osru vnk djrk ;kos Eg.kwu vlq/kkfjr osruJs.khP;k 'ksoVP;k o”kkZr vkdkj.;kr vkysY;k Qh njkis{kk dks.kR;kgh ifjfLFkrhr lq/kkjhr osruJs.kheqGs vkdkjko;kph Qh ok< gh 50 Vdds is{kk tkLr gksrk dkek u;s- : 3 : wp.1025.2011 4- fnukad 1-1-2006 iklwu v'kklfd; foukvuqnkfur@dk;e foukvuqnkfur 'kkGkae/khy f'k{kd o f'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kauk lq/kkfjr osruJs.kheqGs ns; Bj.kk&;k QjdkP;k jdesP;k Fkdhr ns;dkpk vkfFkZd Hkkj fdrh gIR;kr vnk djkok ;kckcrpk fu.kZ; ikyd & f'k{kd la?k o laLFksus@'kkGsps v/;{k @ lfpo @ eq[;k/;kid ;kauh ,df=rfjR;k foHkkxh; f'k{k.k milapkyd ;kaP;k ekU;rsus ?;kok- 5- lq/kkfjr osruJs.kheqGs lnj deZpk&;kauk ns; Bj.kk&;k QjdkP;k jdespk vfrfjDr Hkkj izfrfo|kFkhZ njegk #-50@& is{kk vf/kd gks.kkj ukgh ;kph ifjiw.kZ n{krk ?;kohÞ 3. It is pertinent to note that para 3 of the G.R. cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read with para 5 as well. Para 4 has prescribed the procedure required to be followed which in this case we are satisfied has been duly followed. As per para 5 if the financial burden on account of revision of salary has to be shared, the additional burden to each student should not exceed Rs.50/- per month and as per para 3 of the said G.R., the revision in fees is permissible upto 50% rise. If we read the scheme of para 3 and 5 together, we do not find any merit in the challenge to the revision of fees from Rs.450/- to Rs.700/- per month in the instant case. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed before us a copy of the recent decision in the case of Smt.Satimbla Sharma and Ors v/s. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School and ors., : 4 : wp.1025.2011 Civil Appeal No.2676 of 2010 (decided by the Supreme Court on 11.8.2011). By relying upon the said decision, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no statutory requirement to pay the benefit of VI Pay Commission to the teachers and other staff in the private unaided schools. This submission also does not impress us. The Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.Satimbla Sharma & Ors. (supra), stated “where a statutory provision casts a duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and allowances to its teachers as are being paid to teachers of Government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus to the school could be issued to enforce such statutory duty. But in the present case, there was no statutory provision requiring the private unaided schools to pay to its teachers the same salary and allowances as were payable to teachers of government school and, therefore a mandamus could not be issued to pay to the teachers of private recognised unaided schools the same salary and allowances as were payable to Government institutions”. 5. So far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, the conditions of service of all the teachers and other non teaching staff in the private schools are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 as well as the : 5 : wp.1025.2011 MEPS Rules, 1981 framed thereunder. Section 3(2) of the Act states that the provisions of the said Act shall apply to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra whether receiving grant in aid from the State Government or not and therefore it is well settled as far as State of Maharashtra is concerned that the employees including teachers in the private unaided schools are entitled for the same payscales as are applicable to the teachers and other employees working in the private aided schools, under the Scheme of the Act as well as the MEPS Rules, 1981. 6. We are therefore satisfied that the challenge to the impugned circular increasing the fees does not call for any interference in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Petition must fail. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. We have been assured by Mr.Chinoy the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 that it will consider the request of the parents to grant at least by four weeks to remit the fees. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)