Grievance Redressal Mechanism Governed by Executive Instructions Remains Operative Pending Reference to Larger Bench

The petitioners, comprising various educational institutions and teaching/non-teaching staff, filed a bunch of writ petitions challenging various orders passed by the Education Department officials regarding approvals, transfers, and service benefits.

To address recurring complaints of official inaction and failure to follow settled law, the State had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024, constituting a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority.

A later coordinate Division Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (19-12-2024) doubted the validity of this GR and referred the question of its constitutionality under Article 162 to a Larger Bench.

The petitioners argued that the High Court should decide their cases directly rather than relegating them to a Committee whose legal standing was currently under reference.

1. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 stands vitiated or suspended simply because its validity has been referred to a Larger Bench.

2. Whether the State Government has the executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution to create an administrative mechanism to resolve service-related grievances not covered by Section 9 of the MEPS Act.

Interpretation of the Supreme Court precedent in 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.

Article 162 of the Constitution regarding the executive power of the State, which extends to all matters upon which the State Legislature can make laws, provided it does not conflict with existing statutes.

Principles from Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab affirming that executive power "connotes the residue of governmental functions" and can be exercised through administrative instructions in the absence of specific legislation.

The Court reasoned that since a coordinate Bench in Komal v. State of Maharashtra (25-10-2024) had already upheld the validity of the GR, that decision remains binding law until the Larger Bench decides otherwise.

The Court observed that the Educational Authorities frequently ignore settled judicial pronouncements, leading to "needless litigations," and that the GR was a strategy to streamline administrative functions rather than a creation of a quasi-judicial forum that would oust the jurisdiction of courts.

While acknowledging the reference in Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha, the Court held that the Committee serves as an executive forum to ensure fair play and effective implementation of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules.

The Court emphasized that until a statutory framework is enacted, this administrative mechanism is necessary to prevent the administration from coming to a "standstill".

The petitions were disposed of with directions: (i) the GR mechanism shall operate as guidelines issued by the Court; (ii) the State must constitute an additional State-level Grievance Redressal Committee headed by the Secretary of Education; (iii) the Committees must examine official delays under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005; and (iv) Petitioners were directed to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee within six weeks.