Article 14 & Service Law | Retrospective 6th Pay Commission Pay Scales Mandatory for Non-Teaching Staff in Unaided Institutions : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that unaided private engineering colleges cannot evade retrospective implementation of 6th Pay Commission pay scales for non-teaching staff, holding that financial constraints do not justify discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment underscores that institutions affiliated with statutory bodies like AICTE and state universities must comply with pay revision directives from the effective date prescribed by the government, regardless of their funding status.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Army Institute of Technology, a private unaided engineering college affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University, challenged an Award dated 4 April 2018 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II (CGIT-II), Mumbai. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to implement 6th Pay Commission pay scales for its non-teaching staff with effect from 1 January 2006 and pay arrears accordingly. The petitioner, while having implemented the revised pay scales from 1 July 2009, contested the retrospective applicability.

Key Facts

• The petitioner is administered by the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES), a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, controlled by the Board of Governors headed by the Chief of Army Staff.
• The institute exclusively caters to wards of Army personnel and operates as a self-financing, non-government, non-aided institution, receiving no grants from central or state governments.
• The institute employs 63 teaching staff and 65 non-teaching staff and is approved by the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE).
• The 6th Pay Commission, constituted by the Government of India, submitted its recommendations on 24 March 2008. The University Grants Commission (UGC) extended these benefits to teaching staff of central and state universities, with the Government of India agreeing to bear 80% of the additional expenditure for states adopting the recommendations.
• The Government of Maharashtra adopted the 6th Pay Commission scales for teaching staff via G.R. dated 12 August 2009, but excluded non-teaching staff. A subsequent G.R. dated 20 August 2010 extended revised pay scales to teachers and librarians in professional institutions, but again excluded non-teaching staff.
• The petitioner voluntarily implemented 6th Pay Commission scales for both teaching and non-teaching staff from 1 July 2009.

Procedural History

• Dispute Origin: Respondent No. 3, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, raised a dispute before the Central Labour Commissioner, Pune, demanding implementation of 6th Pay Commission scales for non-teaching staff from 1 January 2006.
• Reference to CGIT-II: The Central Government referred the dispute to CGIT-II via order dated 28 February 2013 (Reference No. CGIT 2/8 of 2013).
• Award Date: CGIT-II passed the impugned Award dated 4 April 2018, directing the petitioner to implement 6th Pay Commission scales for non-teaching staff from 1 January 2006 and pay arrears.
• Stay Order: The Bombay High Court, via order dated 7 December 2018, stayed the Award subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 25,00,000/- in court. The deposit was made on 4 January 2019.
• Present Petition: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7060 of 2023 challenging the Award, which was finally disposed of on 16 June 2026.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of the CGIT-II Award dated 4 April 2018.
• A declaration that retrospective implementation of 6th Pay Commission scales from 1 January 2006 is not mandatory for unaided private institutions.
• Exemption from paying arrears for the period 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2009.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether unaided private engineering colleges can be compelled to implement 6th Pay Commission pay scales retrospectively for non-teaching staff from 1 January 2006, despite:

1. The absence of a specific statutory mandate for non-teaching staff in unaided institutions.
2. The financial burden of retrospective implementation.
3. The petitioner’s voluntary implementation of revised scales from 1 July 2009.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The CGIT-II erred in directing retrospective implementation of 6th Pay Commission scales from 1 January 2006, as the petitioner is a private unaided institution with no obligation to follow government pay scales.
• The petitioner, though not obliged, voluntarily implemented the revised scales from 1 July 2009, and cannot be forced to bear the financial burden of retrospective implementation.
• The judgment in Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena (2017) 4 SCC 449 does not mandate retrospective implementation from 1 January 2006, but only prohibits discrimination between aided and unaided institutions.
• Reliance was placed on:
  • Mrs. Satimbla Sharma v. Saint Paul’s Senior Secondary School (AIR 2011 SC 2926), which held that mandamus for pay parity cannot be issued against unaided private schools in the absence of statutory provisions.
  • Sunanda Pandharinath Adhav v. State of Maharashtra (2001 (1) BomCR 809), which ruled that the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ does not apply to unaided schools.
  • Sanjay Rangnath Patare v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2015), which held that unaided institutions cannot be burdened with arrears from retrospective pay revisions.

For the Respondent (Union)

• The issue of discrimination between teaching and non-teaching staff in unaided institutions is settled by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission, which held that non-teaching staff of unaided institutions are entitled to the same benefits as those in aided institutions.
• The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Pune v. AICTE (2018 SCC Online Bom 2473) has already directed unaided institutions to implement 6th Pay Commission scales retrospectively from 1 January 2006.
• Reliance was placed on:
  • Arudkar Dhananjay Gopalrao v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 2092 of 2001).
  • Vinayak Laxmanrao Gadhekar v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 11259 of 2017).

For the State (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2)

• The State Government cannot be held liable for arrears payable to non-teaching staff of unaided institutions, as the G.R. dated 12 August 2009 excluded non-teaching staff from pay revisions.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a three-pronged analysis to resolve the dispute:

1. Applicability of 6th Pay Commission to Non-Teaching Staff

The Court examined the Supreme Court’s judgment in Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission, which held that excluding non-teaching staff of unaided institutions from pay revisions, while extending the same to aided institutions, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted:

"There was no valid justification for excluding the non-teaching employees of the unaided educational institutions while extending the benefit of the revised pay scales to the non-teaching employees of the aided educational institutions. Such a classification was found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The Court observed that the Government of Maharashtra’s G.R. dated 7 October 2009 (under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994) framed rules for non-teaching staff but excluded unaided institutions. Similarly, AICTE Regulations dated 5 March 2010 did not cover non-teaching staff in technical institutions. Despite this, the Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s direction to implement pay revisions for non-teaching staff, rejecting the argument that unaided institutions should be treated differently.

2. Retrospective Implementation from 1 January 2006

The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Pune, which directly addressed the issue of retrospective implementation. The Division Bench held:

"The petitioners who are bound by the norms and regulations framed by the AICTE to ensure the proper norms and standards to be maintained in the technical institution are bound by the mandate issued by the State Government directing even the non-aided institutions to make the revision of pay-scale applicable from retrospective date. The petitioner cannot run away from the said responsibility only on the count of a financial crunch being posed as an excuse."

The Court emphasized that:

• The State Government’s G.R. dated 20 August 2010 mandated implementation of 6th Pay Commission scales for teachers and equivalent cadres in professional institutions from 1 January 2006.
• The Rules of 2009 (framed under the Maharashtra Universities Act) left no discretion to affiliated institutions regarding the effective date of implementation.
• The financial burden argument was rejected, as the AICTE and state regulations bind unaided institutions to maintain minimum standards, which include timely pay revisions.

3. Distinguishing Precedents Cited by the Petitioner

The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the petitioner:

• Mrs. Satimbla Sharma and Sunanda Pandharinath Adhav dealt with unaided private schools, not professional colleges affiliated to statutory bodies like AICTE or state universities.
• Sanjay Rangnath Patare was distinguished on the ground that it did not involve retrospective implementation under a statutory mandate like the 6th Pay Commission.

The Court held that the ratio of Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission and D.Y. Patil College of Engineering squarely covers the present case, leaving no room for deviation.

The Verdict

The Writ Petition was dismissed with the following directions:

1. The CGIT-II Award dated 4 April 2018 stands confirmed, requiring the petitioner to implement 6th Pay Commission pay scales for non-teaching staff from 1 January 2006.
2. Respondent No. 3 (Union) is permitted to withdraw the entire deposited amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- along with accrued interest.
3. The petitioner must pay the balance arrears to non-teaching staff within 8 weeks of receiving intimation of the withdrawn amount from Respondent No. 3.
4. No order as to costs was passed.
5. Stay on withdrawal was granted for 8 weeks to allow the petitioner to challenge the judgment, after which Respondent No. 3 may withdraw the deposited amount.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Retrospective Pay Revisions Are Binding on Unaided Institutions

• Affiliation to statutory bodies (AICTE, state universities) triggers compliance with government pay revision directives, irrespective of funding status.
• Financial constraints cannot override statutory or regulatory mandates for pay revisions, especially when the effective date is prescribed by government resolutions.

Discrimination Between Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff Is Unconstitutional

• Article 14 prohibits arbitrary classification between employees performing similar functions. Institutions cannot exclude non-teaching staff from pay revisions while extending the same to teaching staff.
• Non-teaching staff in unaided institutions are entitled to the same benefits as those in aided institutions, as held in Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission.

Practical Implications for Employers

• Unaided institutions must budget for retrospective liabilities when implementing pay revisions, as voluntary compliance from a later date does not absolve them of arrears.
• Grievance redressal mechanisms (e.g., university management councils) may direct payment of arrears, and institutions cannot evade such directions on financial grounds.
• Legal challenges to retrospective implementation are unlikely to succeed unless the institution can demonstrate:
  • Absence of statutory/regulatory mandate for the effective date.
  • Violation of natural justice in the pay revision process.
  • Disproportionate financial burden amounting to violation of fundamental rights (though this argument was rejected in D.Y. Patil College of Engineering).