Grievance Redressal Committees under Article 162 are valid administrative forums for non-statutory disputes pending larger bench reference.

Several teaching/non-teaching staff and educational institutions filed writ petitions challenging various orders passed by the Education Department concerning personal recognition, transfers, salary increments, and pension benefits.

These disputes relate to the Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act).

A Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024 established a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle such recurring complaints.

However, a coordinate bench of the High Court in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha recently referred the question of the GR’s constitutional validity under Article 162 to a Larger Bench.

The petitioners approached the High Court directly, questioning whether they must use the GR-mandated mechanism while its validity is under reference.

1. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 stands vitiated or remains functional pending a reference to a Larger Bench.

2. Whether the State Government has the executive competence under Article 162 to create an administrative/supervisory grievance mechanism for matters not strictly covered under Section 9 of the MEPS Act.

The court applied the principle from Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which mandates that High Courts must decide matters based on the law as it stands, even if a reference to a Larger Bench is pending.

It relied on Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., establishing that executive power under Article 162 is co-extensive with legislative power and can be used to issue administrative instructions where no specific enactment covers a particular aspect.

The court also followed its earlier decisions in Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra and Komal v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the GR as an administrative (not quasi-judicial) tool to reduce needless litigation.

The Court reasoned that under the Supreme Court's mandate in the Ladakh case, the previous ruling in Komal, which upheld the validity of the GR, remains binding until the Larger Bench decides otherwise.

The Court observed that the GR does not create a "Tribunal" in the constitutional sense but provides an executive forum to ensure Education Department officials follow settled judicial pronouncements, thereby preventing the "malady" of avoidable writ petitions.

It rejected the argument that Rule 41A of the MEPS Rules (concerning transfers) precluded executive intervention, noting that the GR provides a supervisory mechanism to ensure decisions are actually taken within a timeframe, which is a gap in existing rules.

To enhance efficacy, the Court identified a need for a State-level committee to oversee decisions made by higher authorities like the Commissioner of Education, which the GR had omitted.

The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee within six weeks.

The Court issued a mandamus to the State to: (i) Treat the GR mechanism as court-issued directions until statutory amendments are made [p. 26]; (ii) Constitute an additional State-level Grievance Committee headed by the Education Secretary [p. 27]; and (iii) Consider amending Section 9 of the MEPS Act to give the School Tribunal statutory jurisdiction over these issues [p. 25-26].

The petitions were disposed of by relegating the parties to the administrative remedy.