: 1 : wp.8306.2010.. vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8306 OF 2010 Ukkuda Vilasini Ratnakar .. Petitioner V/s. Tulinj Education Trust & Ors. .. Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.1420 OF 2011 Tulinj Education Trust & anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Ukkudu Vilasnini Ratnakar & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.M.S. Salekar I/b N.R. Bubna for the Petitioner and for Resp. No.1 in WP/1420/2011 Ms.Manjiri Parasnis a/w Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar for the Respondent No.1 and for Petitioner in WP/1420/2011 Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for State in both petitions CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C.: 1. Both these petitions are inter connected and, therefore they are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1306 of 2010 is the Assistant : 2 : wp.8306.2010.. Teacher in the primary school run by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1420 of 2010. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in terms of the order dated 3.4.2008 in Writ Petition No.604 of 2007 by the management, the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Thane passed the order dated 25.6.2008 directing the management to place the Assistant Teacher / Petitioner in the payscale of Rs.4500 – Rs.7000 w.e.f. 4.7.2003. Obviously, this order was passed after hearing the petitioner teacher as well as the management. However, the management preferred to challenge the said order passed by the Education Officer in Writ Petition No.8443 of 2008 and the said petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty and it appears that the management has filed the Writ Petition No.1420 of 2011 in the fresh round. We have not considered the issue as to whether Writ Petition No.1420 of 2011 could be entertained consequent to the order passed by this Court on 5.11.2009 allowing to withdraw the writ petition No.8443 of 2008 with liberty and we preferred to decide the petition on merits. 3. There is no dispute that the teacher possesses the due qualifications for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the primary school; her appoint has been approved by the Education Officer : 3 : wp.8306.2010.. (Primary) from 4.7.2003 and she is not a surplus teacher at any point of time. If that be so, she cannot be deprived of the regular payscales applicable to an Assistant Teacher in a primary school, only because the management is running an English medium school, which is unaided. Section 3(1) of the MEPS Act stipulates that the provisions of the Act as well as the MEPS Rules, 1981 are applicable to the teachers in the private unaided schools as well. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Education Officer and the management is required to pay to the Assistant Teacher the salary as per the payscales applicable to the Assistant Teachers in the primary schools, initially as per the V Pay Commission and subsequently as per the VI Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 4. We, therefore, direct that Respondent No.1 Management (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1420 of 2011) shall apply the regular payscale as applicable to the Assistant Teacher in primary school w.e.f. 4.7.2003 and shall calculate the arrears of pay as per the V Pay Commission as well as the VI Pay Commission recommendations and pay the same within a period of three months from today. However, the pay of the teacher for the month of August 2011 onwards shall be calculated and paid as per the VI Pay Commission recommendations : 4 : wp.8306.2010.. alongwith the other teachers. 5. We make it clear that if the arrears as directed above are not paid within the stipulated period of time of three months, the management shall pay interest @ 10% p.a. 6. Writ Petition No.8306 of 2010 is allowed accordingly and Writ Petition No.1420 of 2011 stands dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)