Grievance Redressal Mechanism Under Government Resolution Operates as Binding Judicial Guidelines Pending Legislative Framework and Reference Outcome

A cohort of writ petitions was filed by various educational institutions and staff members against the Maharashtra Education Department, primarily concerning grievances such as denial of staff recognition, transfer rejections, and salary disputes

The State Government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024, establishing a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle such matters

However, petitioners bypassed this forum, citing a pending reference to a Larger Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (WP 8322/2023), which questioned the State’s executive power under Article 162 to create such a committee

The High Court examined whether existing petitions should be relegated to the committee despite the pending reference.

The court applied the principle from Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, (2024) 18 SCC 643, 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 Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 39, regarding the "residue" nature of executive power under Article 162, asserting that the State can issue administrative instructions where no specific legislation covers an aspect

The court also referenced the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act) and Rules, 1981, specifically noting the lack of mechanisms for addressing administrative delays or non-adherence to judicial precedents

The court reasoned that per the Supreme Court's mandate in UT of Ladakh, the prior Division Bench decisions in Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra and Komal v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the GR’s validity, must be followed until the Larger Bench decides otherwise

The court observed that the Committee is intended to streamline administration and ensure the Education Department follows settled legal positions, rather than acting as a quasi-judicial body or Ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts

It found that while the M.E.P.S. Rules provide authority for decisions, they lack a mechanism to address "inaction" or "delay"—a gap properly filled by the State's executive power under Article 162 to prevent the administration from coming to a standstill

The court sharply criticized the inconsistent stand of certain counsels who initially supported the GR's creation but later challenged it

It directed the State to constitute an additional State-level Committee headed by the Secretary of Education to handle grievances against decisions by the Commissioner of Education (e.g., under Rule 41A)

The court ordered that the mechanism in the GR be treated as directions/guidelines issued by the Court until the Legislature grants it statutory backing

The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the petitioners to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee within six weeks

The court also suggested that the State consider amending Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act to provide more comprehensive statutory redressal