Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. First, we examine the decision in the case of Mahadeo More. Mahadeo More and others worked with an unaided private minority school. They sought salary as per the pay scales prescribed by the State Government through its resolution dated 21 May 2010, extending revision as per the recommendations of the 7 th Pay Commission to the teaching and non-teaching staff. The Respondent- institute therein opposed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the Government Resolution dated 21 May 2010 does not amend Schedule-C appended to the MEPS Rules and the pay scales prescribed therein have not undergone any change. The Division Bench (B. P. Dharmadhikari and P. R. Bora, JJ.) referred to Rule 7 of the MEPS Rules. The Division Bench opined that as per the legislative design in Rule 7, the State Government has been denied power to vary scales of pay in Schedule "C" through executive fiat unless and until the rules are amended by following the process stated in section 16(3), that new pay scales cannot be read into it and become part of the Schedule. The Division Bench then addressed the question as to whether the Secondary School Code or the Government Resolution issued can operate dehors the MEPS Act and the MEPS Rules. The Division Bench concluded that the MEPS Act covers the entire field regarding service conditions. The Division Bench, therefore, held as under: