ANNASAHEB CHUDAMAN PATIL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING THR ITS PRINCIPAL AND ANRversusUNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI THR THE REGISTRAR AND ORS

                                                                         WP-8424-26.DOC

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 8424 OF 2026


                      1. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil
                         College of Engineering,
                         through its Principal,
                         Plot No.17, Sector-4,
                         Opp. Kharghar Railway Station,
                         Navi Mumbai-410210.

                      2. Jawahar Education Society,
                         through its Chairman,
                         having office at :
                         Plot No.17, Sector-4,
                         Opp. Kharghar Railway Station,
                         Navi Mumbai-410210.                            ...Petitioners

                              Versus

                      1. University of Mumbai,
                         through the Registrar,
                         Fort Campus, M. G. Road,
                         Mumbai – 400032.

                      2. The Grievance Redressal Committee,
                         University of Mumbai,
                        through its Chairman,
SAINATH
SANJAY                   Fort Campus, M. G. Road,
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
                         Mumbai – 400032.
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.30
21:35:21 +0530
                      3. Mrs. Ranjana Jitendra Mahajan
                         B-406, Ajanta Sea Breeze CHS,
                         Sector – 14, Airoli,
                         Navi Mumbai – 400708.

                      4. Ms. Anagha Vijay Malkapurkar
                         103, Raliya Residency,
                         Pt. No. 179D, Sector-30,
                         Kharghar, Navi Mumbai.

                      5. Shri Sachin Dewaji Chaure

                      SAINATH, PA                      1/17
                                           WP-8424-26.DOC

     Mahalaxmi City, Type-E,
     Bldg. No.04, Flat No.A-203,
     Vihighar, New Panvel-410206.

6. Shri Pandit Tulshiram Yewale
   Flat No.402, Sutar Tower CHS Ltd.,
   Plot No.D-4, Sector-20, Airoli,
   Navi Mumbai.

7. Shri Pundlik Narayanrao Ghate
   202, Shree Shiv Sai CHS,
   Plot No.50 & 51, Sector-19,
   Kharghar, Navi Mumbai.

8. Mrs. Sandhya Ajay Awate
   Himgiri Apts, C-6-9, O-4,
   Sector-06, CBD Belapur,
   Navi Mumbai – 400614.

9. Smt. Shital Abhishek Patil
   B-4, Build. No.01,
   Neelkanth Prerana,
   Karve Road, Vishnu Nagar,
   Dombivali (W) – 421202.

10. Shri Sandeep Nilkanthrao Zade
    E-1404, Devdarshan CHS,
    Sector-19, Kharghar,
    Navi Mumbai – 410210.

11. Shri Ravindra Pandit Patil
    B-104, Ashapura Sadan CHS,
    Plot No.45/46, Sector-09,
    Khanda Colony,
    New Panvel (W) – 410206.

12. Shri Sandeep Wamanrao Matey
    Mahavir Shraddha, B-606,
    Plot No.12, Sector-14,
    Kopar Khairane,
    Navi Mumbai – 400709.

13. Shri Ratan Ramchandra Kamble

SAINATH, PA                         2/17
                                                          WP-8424-26.DOC

      Shree Jai Ganesh CHS,
      C-405, Sector-36, Plot No.34,
      Kamothe – 410206.

14. Shri Sanjay Ambadas Patil
    Flat No.501, Tower No.05,
    New Satara CHS, Plot No.A/24-E,
    Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410210.                   …Respondents
                                                      _________
_____________ _______ ___

Mr. Aadesh Konde Deshmukh, a/w Mr. Sainath Garade, Mr.
Yogesh Sukale, Ms. Shruti Pokale, Yuganter Goel, for the
Petitioners.

Mr. Mohd. Monis, i/b Rui Rodrigues, for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Avinash Belge, for Respondent Nos. 3 - 14.

_____________________________________

                CORAM                 :      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                RESERVED ON           :      10th SEPTEMBER 2026
                PRONOUNCED ON :              30th SEPTEMBER 2026


JUDGMENT:


1.      Rule.


2.      Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of

the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.


3.      This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of

an order dated 20th June, 2024 passed by the Grievance


SAINATH, PA                           3/17
                                                      WP-8424-26.DOC

Redressal Committee, University of Mumbai (R-2) in the

grievances filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 14, whereby the

petitioners have been directed to fix the salaries of the

Respondent Nos.3 to 14 as per the 7 th Pay Commission Report

w.e.f. 01st January, 2016 and also pay the arrears of salary

within a period of 9 months thereof, and furnish the copies of

respective service books to Respondent Nos.3 to 14.


4.      The background facts can be stated, in brief, as under :-


4.1     The Petitioner No.2 is a Public Charitable Trust registered

under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950.

The Petitioner No.2 runs Petitioner No.1 – College. The

Petitioner No.1 is an Unaided Institution and the expenses

incurred to run the College are met from the tuition fees and

institutional income. The petitioners claimed, the Petitioner

No.1 – College operates strictly on a no-profit-no-loss basis.


4.2     The Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 are the members of the

teaching staff. In the year 2022, Respondent Nos.3 to 14 lodged

their grievances with the Grievance Redressal Committee of the

University of Mumbai (R-2), inter alia, seeking implementation

of the 7th Pay Commission Pay Scales w.e.f. 01 st January, 2016

and the arrears of pay.
SAINATH, PA                        4/17
                                                      WP-8424-26.DOC



4.3     By    the   impugned   order,   the   Grievance   Redressal

Committee, University of Mumbai (R-2) allowed the grievance

application observing, inter alia, that, the Government of

Maharashtra has directed the Universities to implement the 7 th

Pay Commission Report w.e.f. 01 st January, 2016 in case of

employees working in the affiliated colleges; aided or unaided.

The University of Mumbai has, in turn, directed all the

affiliated colleges, including the Petitioner No.1, to pay salaries

as per the 7th Pay Commission Report. Therefore, the

Respondent Nos.3 to 14 were entitled to the pay scales as per

the 7th Pay Commission Report and copies of their respective

service books.


4.4     The Grievance Redressal Committee noted that, the

representative of the petitioners has submitted that, the

petitioners were in the process of implementing the 7 th Pay

Commission recommendations and a period of one year was

required to fully implement the said recommendations. Thus,

the Grievance Redressal Committee was persuaded to grant 9

months period from the date of communication of the said

order to pay the salary, allowances and also the arrears as per

the 7th Pay Commission recommendations.


SAINATH, PA                         5/17
                                                      WP-8424-26.DOC



4.5     Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned

order, the petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition. It was

inter alia asserted that, despite the petitioners having brought

to the notice of the Grievance Redressal Committee that, on

account of the declining number of admissions, huge vacancies

in the sanctioned student intake and the resultant financial

stress, the Grievance Redressal Committee has directed the

petitioners    to   implement     the    7th   Pay    Commission

recommendations retrospectively w.e.f. 01st January, 2016 and

that would put an unbearable financial burden on the

petitioners and thereby impair the very capacity of the

petitioners to run the Petitioner No.1 – College. The petitioners

have no qualm over the implementation of the 7 th Pay

Commission recommendations prospectively and have, in fact,

extended the benefit thereof since the year 2025. The direction for

implementation of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations

w.e.f. 01st January, 2016, however, is extremely onerous.


5.      I have heard Mr. Aadesh Konde Deshmukh, the learned

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohammed Anis, the learned

Counsel for Respondent No.1, and Mr. Avinash Belge, the

learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 14. With the


SAINATH, PA                       6/17
                                                    WP-8424-26.DOC

assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have also

perused the material on record.


6.      Mr. Aadesh Konde Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for

the petitioners, strenuously submitted that the Grievance

Redressal Committee (R-2) did not correctly appreciate the

consequences that would result from the implementation of the

7th Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01st January, 2016.

It was not the case that, there was willful omission to extend

the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations. In

fact, the petitioners have extended the pay scales in accordance

with the 7th Pay Commission recommendations since the year

2025. That underscores the bona fide intent of the petitioners.

In this backdrop, the Grievance Redressal Committee (R-2)

could not have directed the implementation of the 7 th Pay

Commission recommendations from 01st January, 2016.


7.      In the process, Mr. Konde Deshmukh would urge, the

Grievance Redressal Committee (R-2) lost sight of the reasons

ascribed by the petitioners for not extending the benefit of 7 th

Pay Commission recommendations since 01st January 2016.

Laying emphasis on the fact that, the petitioners have

consistently pleaded that, on account of reduction in the


SAINATH, PA                       7/17
                                                                WP-8424-26.DOC

student strength and diminished admissions, they were put to

severe financial constraints, and, yet, the petitioners have

implemented the 7th Pay Commission recommendations since

January 2025, Mr Konde Deshmukh urged that, the direction

for      implementation       of          the     7th    Pay    Commission

recommendations       since        01st    January,      2016   was   wholly

unwarranted and uncalled for.


8.      At any rate, Mr. Konde Deshmukh would urge, the

arrears of pay could not have been claimed and directed to be

paid by the Grievance Redressal Committee (R-2) for a period

preceding 3 years prior to the lodging of the grievances.

Therefore, the impugned order warrants interference to the

extent of the direction for the implementation of the 7 th Pay

Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01st January, 2016.


9.      Mr. Avinash Belge, the learned Counsel for Respondent

Nos.3 to 14, countered the submissions on behalf of the

petitioners with equal tenacity. Mr. Belge submitted that, from

the perusal of the impugned order passed by the Grievance

Redressal Committee (R-2), it becomes evident that, the

representative of the petitioners had only sought time of about

one       year   to   implement            the     7th   Pay    Commission


SAINATH, PA                                8/17
                                                             WP-8424-26.DOC

recommendations. The grounds now sought to be urged before

this Court, were not raised before the Grievance Redressal

Committee (R-2). The entitlement of Respondent Nos.3 to 14 to

the pay and allowances as per the 7th Pay Commission

recommendations is incontrovertible. In fact, the petitioners

claimed that, they have implemented the 7 th Pay Commission

recommendations w.e.f. January, 2025. In this view of the

matter, the controversy sought to be raised with regard to the

date      of   implementation       of    the   7th   Pay    Commission

recommendations, need not detain the Court, urged Mr. Belge.


10.     It was submitted that, this Court has repeatedly held

that, the notifications issued by the State Government and the

University of Mumbai, make it explicitly clear that, the pay

scales as per the 7th Pay Commission recommendations was to

be given from 01st January, 2016. The submissions like the one

canvassed in this petition premised on the financial constraints

and      difficulties   in   the   implementation     of    the   7 th   Pay

Commission recommendations, have been repeatedly repelled

by the Supreme Court and this Court.


11.     To buttress this submission, Mr. Belge placed reliance on

a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,


SAINATH, PA                              9/17
                                                     WP-8424-26.DOC

Mahatma Gandhi Mission & ors. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena &

ors.1, and the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the

cases of Barun Kumar s/o Manmohan Choudhary & ors. Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & ors. 2, Bhausaheb Lakshman

Kalunke Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.3, and Dr. Dinesh

Kumar Omkarnath Agarwal & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra &

ors4.


12.     To start with, it is necessary to note that, there is no

controversy over the fact that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 are

entitled to pay and allowances in accordance with the

recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. By and large, it is

not in dispute that vide notification dated 01 st March, 2019, the

All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) has revised

the pay scales of the teaching staff employed in technical

institutions as per the 7th Pay Commission recommendations

w.e.f. 01st January, 2016. The Government of Maharashtra vide

GRs dated 08th March, 2019 and 11th September, 2019 has

resolved to implement the revised pay scales of the teachers

appointed in colleges affiliated to the public universities. The


1       (2017) 4 SCC 449
2       WP/5134/2018+ dt.19/04/2022
3       WP/10652/2019 dt.17/10/2022
4       WP/2683/2021+ dt. 17/11/2022
SAINATH, PA                       10/17
                                                             WP-8424-26.DOC

petitioners, in fact, claimed to have extended the benefit of the

revised pay scale since January, 2025. The controversy, thus,

lies in a narrow compass; whether the implementation of the

revised pay scales could be deferred to a date beyond 01

January, 2016 on account of purported financial difficulties ?


13.     Mr. Konde Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the

petitioners, as noted above, made a strenuous effort to

persuade the Court to hold that, the implementation of the 7 th

Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01st January, 2016

would cripple the finances of the petitioners and would

eventually affect the operation of the Petitioner No.1 – college. It

was submitted that, over a period of time there has been a

gradual decrease in the number of admissions and the revenue

generated     by   the   petitioners    in     the   form   of   fees   has

considerably declined. Even the fee structure was revised on

account of the reduction in number of the students. These

factors, Mr. Konde Deshmukh would submit, ought to have

been      adequately considered by the Grievance Redressal

Committee (R-2).


14.     The edifice of the aforesaid submission was that, since

the petitioners do not receive any grant-in-aid, an onerous


SAINATH, PA                            11/17
                                                        WP-8424-26.DOC

liability to pay the salary and allowances as per the 7th Pay

Commission, cannot be fastened on the petitioners. I am afraid,

it is too late in the day to canvass the aforesaid submissions.




15.     In the case of Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission

(supra), the Supreme Court repelled the precise submission

sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. The

Supreme Court in terms observed that, the institutions were

obliged under law to pay the salaries and allowances in

accordance        with    the     governing     pay     commission

recommendations which were ordered to be implemented by

the AICTE, the State Government and the University to which

the institutions were affiliated, and it was for the institutions to

work out their remedies and find out ways and means to meet

the financial liability arising out of the obligation to pay the

revised pay scales.


16.     It is judicially recognized that, the financial constraint is

the first line of defence to the claim for revised pay scale. The

standard objection is that, if the institution is compelled to pay

the salary to the members of the staff, in accordance with the

revised pay scales, the institution will have to close down. The

Supreme Court, in the case of Frank Anthony Public School
SAINATH, PA                         12/17
                                                            WP-8424-26.DOC

Employees       Assn.   Vs.   Union     of    India5,   emphasized      the

inappositeness of the aforesaid line of objections in the

following words :-

         “23. We must refer to the submissions of Mr Frank
         Anthony regarding the excellence of the institution and
         the fear that the institution may have to close down if
         they have to pay higher scales of salary and allowances to
         the members of the staff. As we said earlier the excellence
         of the institution is largely dependent on the excellence of
         the teachers and it is no answer to the demand of the
         teachers for higher salaries to say that in view of the high
         reputation enjoyed by the institution for its excellence, it
         is unnecessary to seek to apply provisions like Section 10
         the Delhi School Education Act to the Frank Anthony
         Public School. On the other hand, we should think that
         the very contribution made by the teachers to earn for
         the institution the high reputation that it enjoys should
         spur the management to adopt at least the same scales of
         pay as the other institutions to which Section 10 applies.
         Regarding the fear expressed by Shri Frank Anthony that
         the institution may have to close down we can only hope
         that the management will do nothing to the nose to spite
         the face, merely to "put the teachers in their proper
         place". The fear expressed by the management here has
         the same ring as the fear expressed invariably by the
         management of every industry that disastrous results
         would follow which may even lead to the closing down of
         the industry if wage scales are revised.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)


5       (1986) 4 SCC 707
SAINATH, PA                           13/17
                                                                       WP-8424-26.DOC



17.     Indeed,        this       Court       has      repeatedly     rejected   the

submissions on the part of the institutions premised on the

financial constraints that, the recommendations may not be

implemented from an anterior date, from which they became

effective.


18.     In the case of Dr. Suryaprakash Dhaneria Vs. State of

Maharashtra & ors.6, a Division Bench of this Court did not

approve of the objections rested in the purported delay in

seeking the revised pay scale on the part of an employee. The

Division Bench observed as under :-

              “18. Once it is concluded that it was obligatory on the
              part of the management to make the payment of
              salary   as        per    the     Vth      Pay     Commission
              recommendations, refusal or denial to make the
              payment would not shift the blame to the petitioner.
              By refusing to make the payment, the management
              has committed a wrong and when the petitioner waited
              for the management to take a decision and approached
              this Court after he was exasperated and exhausted,
              accepting the contention of the management that
              delay would deprive him of the benefits, would amount
              to accepting the contention that delay would legalise
              an illegality. We are of this view since we are taking
              cognizance    of    the   representations        made   by   the



6       2018 (3) Mh.L.J. 567
SAINATH, PA                                    14/17
                                                                          WP-8424-26.DOC

              petitioner to the management, which would indicate
              that he was not sleeping over his rights.”
                                                         (emphasis supplied)


19.     In the case of Barun Kumar Choudhary (supra), after an

exhaustive analysis of the previous precedents including the

decision in the case of Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission

(supra) and Dr. Suryaprakash Dhaneria (supra), another

Division Bench enunciated the legal position as under :-

              “89.       Having considered the above position, it is
              clear that there is a liability cast upon the Management
              to pay the arrears of the 6th Pay Commission and other
              dues. It is not a matter of charity. At the time of seeking
              recognition/approval, the Management has to give an
              undertaking that all stating dues will be paid. The issue
              as to whether the 6th Pay Commission would apply to
              un-aided Institutions, such as present Management,
              was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of
              Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (supra). This
              decision   was    rendered     on      5   January     2017.     The
              Employees       and    their     Association          had      made
              representations to the Management. All the Petitioners
              in these petitions are appointees prior to the date of the
              decision   of    the   Supreme      Court.      The    Petitioners
              Employees filed the petitions once the Supreme Court
              rendered the decision and legal rights arose. There is no
              indication in the decision of the Supreme Court in the
              case of Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (supra),
              that the dues need to be restricted to three years.



SAINATH, PA                                  15/17
                                                                         WP-8424-26.DOC

              90. The    Division    Benches        of   this   Court,     having
              considered the legal position, have taken the view that if
              a representation is made, it will be unjust to deprive the
              teaching and non-teaching staff of the benefits of the 6 th
              Pay Commission. There is no reason why we should
              take   a   different   view.    We,     therefore,   uphold     the
              contention of the Employees that they are entitled to
              their dues as prayed for from the date of their
              entitlement    and     reject     the      contention      of   the
              Management that its liability to pay the Employees will
              be three years prior to filing of the petitions.”
                                                          (emphasis supplied)


20.     It would be superfluous to multiply the pronouncements

which have emphasized that, the employees who have been

wrongfully deprived of the benefit of the revised pay scales,

should not be deprived of the arrears of pay and allowances for

the period preceding 3 years before the filing of the petition or

grievance before the Tribunal/statutory Authorities.


21.     In the case at hand, this Court finds that, the

Respondent Nos.3 to 14 were diligent in pursuing their

remedies. The Respondent Nos.3 to 14 had initially addressed

their grievances to the office bearers of the Petitioner No.1,

authorities of the University and AICTE. Eventually, the

Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 filed grievances before the Grievance

Redressal Committee (R-2) constituted under Section 79 of the

SAINATH, PA                                   16/17
                                                       WP-8424-26.DOC

Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. Thus, it cannot be

said that, the Respondent Nos.3 to 14 were not agitating their

claim for the revised pay scales, diligently.


22.     The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that, the

Grievance Redressal Committee (R-2) has correctly intervened

in the matter and directed the petitioners to discharge their

statutory obligations. In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction,

this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with

the impugned order which is in consonance with law.


23.     The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Hence, the following order :-

                             ::ORDER::


       (i)    The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

       (ii)   Rule discharged.

              No costs.



                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                        17/17