Section 9 MEPS Act Cannot Be Expanded To Cover Pay, Increment Or Monetary Claims By School Employees: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday (Feb 6) held that section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS) cannot be invoked in disputes pertaining to 'salary scale' as it would result in expanding the provisions' scope and also make the School Tribunals, a general forum to hear all kinds of financial claims by employees against school managements. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar clarified that section 9 of the MEPS Act can only be invoked in specific situations such as termination, reduction in rank or supersession in promotion and not in cases of disputes relating to pay scales.Explaining the difference between the concepts of 'promotion' and 'placement in a higher pay scale', Justice Borkar pointed out that though these two concepts, sometimes result in higher salary but still cannot be treated as identical. "A higher pay scale does not automatically mean promotion. When an employee contends that after acquiring a higher qualification s/he became entitled to a graduate pay scale, the dispute is essentially about the correct application of Government policy or service rules. The Court or authority has to examine whether the employee fulfills the conditions laid down in the relevant Government Resolution. The issue is whether the policy covers the employee and from which date benefit should be granted. Such a dispute does not amount to supersession in promotion. Supersession arises only when a promotional post exists and a junior is preferred over a senior in that promotional exercise. If there is no promotion to a higher post and the grievance is confined to salary scale, the matter does not fit within the limited categories mentioned in Section 9 of the Act," Justice Borkar held. The judge said that employees of educational institutes cannot 'expand' the scope of section 9 of the MEPS by brining each of their financial disputes to the School Tribunals."If every dispute relating to pay, increments, or monetary benefits is allowed to be brought before the School Tribunal under Section 9, the scope of that provision would expand far beyond what the legislature intended. The Tribunal would then become a general forum for all kinds of financial claims between employees and management. The Act does not confer such wide jurisdiction. The right of appeal under Section 9 is restricted to specific situations such as termination, reduction in rank, or supersession in promotion. Therefore, unless the claim regarding higher pay scale is directly connected with denial of promotion to a higher post in favour of a junior, it cannot be treated as a case of supersession," the judge ruled. The judge noted that in the instant case, the petitioner, was appointed as a teacher and she later improved her qualification by obtaining a graduate degree and thus demanded 'graduate pay scale' after qualification and her seniority. The judge noted that the petitioner failed to point out to any order by which she was removed, dismissed, terminated, or reduced to a lower post or if a junior teacher was promoted to a higher post while ignoring the petitioner's seniority. "The record does not show that any separate promotional post was filled and that the petitioner was denied consideration for the same. There is no material to indicate that her rank in the cadre was altered or that she was pushed down in hierarchy. She continues to serve on the same post as before. Her complaint is confined to salary scale.The dispute, therefore, is about whether she is entitled to a higher pay scale on account of acquiring higher qualification and on the basis of seniority. However, it does not amount to reduction in rank. Nor does it amount to supersession in promotion as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act," the judge said. Section 9, Justice Borkar explained, provides a limited 'right of appeal' in specific situations and that it does not confer a general right to approach the Tribunal for every service related grievance. The judge noted that since the petitioner's case did not fall within the categories of dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank, or supersession in promotion, her appeal itself was not maintainable before the School Tribunal."The dispute relates to grant of a particular pay scale and does not involve dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank, or supersession in promotion. The statutory conditions necessary to invoke the appellate remedy were not satisfied," the judge held. Therefore, the judge dismissed her plea challenging the order of a School Tribunal passed against her on November 20, 2007.Appearance:Advocates Bhushan Tayade and A Tayade appeared for the Petitioner.Assistant Government Pleader GS Deshmukh represented the State.Advocates VK Bodhare and AM Joshi represented a private Respondent. Case Title: Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society (Writ Petition 2419 of 2008)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54Click...

Section 9 MEPS Act Cannot Be Expanded To Cover Pay, Increment Or Monetary Claims By School Employees: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Section 9 MEPS Act Cannot Be Expanded To Cover Pay, Increment Or Monetary Claims By School Employees: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers