State Grievance Redressal Committees for Educational Staff Remain Functional as Executive Directives Pending Larger Bench Reference

Several teaching and non-teaching staff members and educational managements filed writ petitions against orders passed by the Education Department concerning personal recognition, transfers, pay revisions, and pension benefits.

The State Government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) on 27-03-2024 to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle such "petty matters".

A later Coordinate Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (WP 8322/2023) doubted the validity of this GR—specifically whether an appellate forum could be created via executive power under Article 162—and referred the matter to a Larger Bench.

The Petitioners sought judicial intervention during the pendency of this reference.

High Courts must decide matters based on the law as it stands, regardless of a pending reference to a Larger Bench.

Need for an administrative mechanism to prevent needless litigation in "petty" educational matters.

Under Article 162, the State’s executive power is co-extensive with its legislative power and can be exercised through administrative instructions even in the absence of specific legislation, provided it does not contravene existing law.

As the validity of the GR had already been upheld by a prior Division Bench in Komal v. State of Maharashtra, that judgment remains binding law despite a subsequent referral of the same issue to a Larger Bench.

The "Appellate Forum" under the GR does not exercise quasi-judicial powers (such as summoning witnesses or administering oaths) but acts as a supervisory administrative body to ensure officials follow settled judicial pronouncements.

While rules exist for making decisions under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, they are silent on the remedy for administrative inaction or failure to apply settled law; thus, the GR fills a vacuum under Article 162.

The GR is a product of joint suggestions from the Bar and the State to reduce judicial backlog.

The mechanism shall be treated as guidelines issued by the Court.

An additional State-level Committee headed by the Education Secretary must be constituted to hear grievances against decisions of the Commissioner.

The State is requested to give this mechanism statutory backing by amending the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules.

The court disposed of the petitions by directing the Petitioners to approach the Committee within six weeks.