Grievance Redressal Committee Mechanism Upheld as Valid Administrative Guidance Pending Larger Bench Reference Outcome

The petitioners, comprising various educational institutions and teaching/non-teaching staff, filed writ petitions challenging orders of the Education Department regarding service matters (e.g., approvals, transfers, and pay scales)

The State had previously issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024 to create a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) for such disputes to reduce the burden on the High Court

However, the petitioners bypassed this GRC, citing that a Division Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (19-12-2024) had referred the validity of the GR to a Larger Bench, questioning if such a forum could be created via executive power under Article 162

1. Whether the High Court must follow the law as it stands despite a pending reference to a Larger Bench regarding the validity of the Grievance Redressal Committee.

2. Whether the State Government, under Article 162, has the executive power to create an administrative grievance mechanism for service disputes not covered by statutory tribunals.

The court applied the rule from Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2024), which mandates that High Courts must decide matters on the basis of existing law and cannot await the outcome of a reference to a Larger Bench unless specifically directed

It relied on Komal v. State of Maharashtra (25-10-2024), which upheld the validity of the GR dated 27-03-2024 as an administrative forum

Regarding executive power, the court relied on Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1982) and Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P. (1974), establishing that under Article 162, the State's executive power is co-extensive with its legislative power and can fill gaps in administration where no specific enactment exists

The court reasoned that since the validity of the GR had been upheld in Komal’s case, that judgment remains the "law as it stands" until the Larger Bench decides otherwise

The court observed that the GRC was not a quasi-judicial body replacing statutory forums but an executive mechanism intended to ensure officials follow settled legal positions and avoid "needless litigation"

The court criticized the inconsistent conduct of certain counsel who initially supported the GR and later challenged it

Analyzing Article 162, the court found the State competent to streamline its own administration through these committees

However, to enhance "efficacy and permanence," the court suggested that the mechanism eventually be given statutory backing by amending the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules

The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to approach the GRC within six weeks

(i) the mechanism shall be treated as court-issued guidelines until statutory provisions are enacted; (ii) the State must constitute an additional State-level GRC headed by the Secretary of Education to handle higher-level approvals; and (iii) GRCs must examine delays under the Maharashtra Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005