Validity of Grievance Redressal Committees for Educational Staff Upheld Pending Reference to Larger Bench

A cluster of Writ Petitions was filed by various educational institutions and staff regarding disputes over personal recognition, transfers, pay revisions, and pension benefits

The Government of Maharashtra had issued a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 27-03-2024, constituting a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle such recurring administrative complaints

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra doubted the validity of this G.R., questioning if such a forum could be created via executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, and referred the matter to a Larger Bench

The Petitioners approached the High Court directly, bypassing the Committee, citing the pending reference

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

The Court relied on Article 162 of the Constitution of India regarding the State’s executive power to issue administrative instructions where no specific enactment covers a particular aspect

It further followed the precedents of Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra and Komal v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the validity of the G.R. on the grounds that the Committee performs administrative/supervisory functions rather than quasi-judicial ones

The Court reasoned that until a Larger Bench sets aside the G.R. dated 27-03-2024, the law as declared in Komal—upholding the G.R.—remains binding

The Court observed that the Education Department frequently ignores settled law, leading to "needless litigation" and "unwarranted strain" on the judiciary and school management

The Court clarified that the Grievance Committee does not possess the "trappings of a Court" (e.g., summoning witnesses on oath) and thus does not violate the separation of powers or the M.E.P.S. Act; rather, it provides a supervisory mechanism to ensure departmental officials follow judicial pronouncements

The Court also criticized the inconsistent conduct of counsel who initially supported the G.R. but later challenged its validity in subsequent litigations

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

Furthermore, it ordered the State to constitute an additional State-level Grievance Committee headed by the Secretary of Education to handle disputes involving approvals by the Commissioner of Education

The Court strongly suggested that the State Government give the mechanism statutory backing by amending the M.E.P.S. Act or Section 9 thereof

All petitions were disposed of with directions to committees to examine officials' inaction under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005