KERALEEYA SAMAJAM & ANR. versus PRATIBHA DATTATRAY KULKARNI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 01-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
KERALEEYA SAMAJAM & ANR.
v.
PRATIBHA DATTATRAY KULKARNI (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21660-21661 of 2019)
OCTOBER 01, 2021
[M.R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of
Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 – Second petitioner-School directed
by High Court to pay arrears of salary as per 5th and 6th Pay
Commission to its teaching  and  non-teaching  staff – Petitioners
though ready to pay the arrears, sought to restrict the same to three
years preceding the filing of the writ petitions alleging limitation in
view of respondents having approached the Deputy Director
(Education) – Held: Only when the petitioners though required to
pay wages as per the applicable rules and recommendation of 6th
Pay Commission, failed to make the payment, the respondents were
compelled to approach the Deputy Director (Education) thereafter
– For the lapse and inaction on the part of the petitioners, the
respondents cannot be denied the arrears of salaries as per the 6th
Pay Commission recommendation, which otherwise they are entitled
to – Service Law.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. Considering orders passed in earlier round of
litigations which ended up to this court the liability of the
management to pay the salaries to the teaching and non--teaching
staff as per the 4th Pay Commission and 5th Pay Commission ended
in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff working with the
petitioners. Therefore as and when the 6th Pay Commission
recommendations were made applicable as such it was the duty
cast upon the petitioners’ institution to pay the salary/wages to
the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the applicable pay scale
under the 6th Pay Commission recommendation and for which
the staff was not required to move before the Deputy Director
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 737
737
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
(Education) again and again. Therefore, the submissions on behalf
of the petitioners that as the respondents approached the Deputy
Director (Education) subsequently and therefore the question
with respect to the limitation will come into play and therefore
the respondents shall be entitled to the arrears of last three years
preceding the filing of the writ petitions cannot accepted. The
respondents were compelled to approach the Deputy Director
only when the petitioners though were required to pay the wages
as per the applicable rules and as per the recommendation of 6th
Pay Commission, failed to make the payment, the respondents
were compelled to approach the Deputy Director (Education)
thereafter. For the lapse and inaction on the part of the petitioners,
the respondents cannot be made to suffer and deny the arrears
of the salaries as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendation,
which otherwise they are entitled to. Every time the teachers
were not supposed to approach the appropriate authority for
getting the benefit as and when there is a revision of pay as
per the pay commission recommendations. [Paras 4, 5]
[741-F-H; 742-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C) Nos.21660-21661 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5311 of 2011 and Writ Petition
No.5338 of 2000.
Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Praseena
Elizabeth Joseph, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Akshay Girish Ringe, Ms. Megha Mukerjee, Aaditya A. Pande,
Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, Tarun
Kumar Thakur, Harshal Bhaskar Kulkarni, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 28.06.2019 in Writ Petition No.5311 of 2011 and Writ
Petition No.5338 of 2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, the management has preferred the present special leave
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
petitions. By the impugned common judgment and order the High Court
has declared that the entitlement of the original petitioners is to receive
wages in pay scales as per Schedule – C to the Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981.
Thereafter, the Division Bench has disposed of the said writ petitions
issuing a direction to the Deputy Director (Education) to see that the
teachers working with the petitioners school are received their wages
and salaries accordingly. The High Court has als
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.