Anil L. Pansare, J.

1. The issue involved in these petitions is amenable to the mechanism evolved under the Government Resolution dated 27-03-2024. The Government Resolution containing instructions to deal with recurring complaints arising from the failure of officials of Education Department to discharge their duties has been evolved in terms of the instructions issued by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat from time to time in the case of Nitin Bhika Tadge and another vs The State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition No.204/2019 with connected matter which includes Writ Petition No.1182/2024. The Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority has been constituted to file complaints/appeals against the order passed by the Zonal Officers on the applications of private aided/unaided/partially aided, teaching and non teaching staff and educational institutions in the school department. The subjects in respect of which complaints/appeals may be preferred before the Committee have been enumerated as follows :

                   “1. Cases of denial of personal recognition of teaching and non-teaching staff.

                   2. Cases of rejected transfers of teaching and non-teaching staff.

                   3. Cases of denial of appointment on compassionate ground.

                   4. Appointment Disputes on Eligibility of Employees.

                   5. Cases of rejection of SHALARTH ID.

                   6. Cases of refusal to up-gradation of part-time posts to full-time higher secondary teachers.

                   7. Cases rejected on up-gradation from Part-Time Librarian to Full-Time Librarian post.

                   8. Cases in which the Accountant (Education) has refused pay revision, pay increment, and pay scale.

                   9. Workload related disputes/complaints.

                   10. Complaints/disputes regarding pension and pension benefits.

                   11. Disputes regarding cancellation of posts.

                   12. Absorption of surplus employees on account of abolition/reduction of post.

                   13. Complaints regarding violation of the rule in making surplus employees due to cancellation/reduction of post.

                   14. Appeals against orders refusing to condone service breaks within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education.

                   15. Cases against the decision taken by Regional Officer in the matter not covered under section 9 of the Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.”

2. As stated earlier, the issue involved in these petitions and several other petitions fall within the categories for which the State Government has constituted Grievance Redressal Committee/ Appellate Authority. Despite such status the instant petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Authorities of the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19-12-2024 in the case of Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha, Gondia and others vs State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.8322/2023 has referred to a Larger Bench the question as to whether such a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority could be constituted by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

3. The question therefore that arises for consideration is whether the Grievance Redressal Committee/ Appellate Authority constituted under the Government Resolution would stand vitiated, particularly when the validity of Government Resolution has been tested and upheld by Division Bench vide judgment dated 25-10-2024 in the case of Komal d/o Balaji Awatirak and another vs The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.7355/2024 with connected matters.

4. Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Government Pleader and Senior Counsel has invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, through its General Secretary and another, reported in (2024) 18 SCC 643, wherein the Court held thus :

                   “35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.”

5. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pending reference, the Courts will proceed to decide the matters on the basis of the law as it stands. The Court further clarified that it will not be open to the High Court to refuse to follow a judgment on the count that it has been doubted by a later coordinate Bench.

6. The pronouncement indicates that pending reference the matters will have to be processed in terms of law as it stands. Before we comment on the position of law as it stands today, we would like to discuss the reasons why the Government Resolution under question was issued. The Government Resolution has been referred to in Nitin Tadge’s case. It took note of the fact that the Educational institutes and their employees are required to approach the High Court despite the legal position settled in their favour but ignored by the authorities of the Education Department while passing order. During pendency of the said petition, the State Government issued the aforesaid Government Resolution. The Division Bench while disposing of the individual petition also issued directions as regards the procedure to be followed while deciding the proposals by the educational authorities. The directions issued read as under :-

                   “PART-II

                   A. (i) We direct that upon receipt of a proposal seeking approval, the Educational Authority, as per the methodology laid down in the Government Resolution dated 6 February 2012, will communicate the shortfalls/ objections in the proposal submitted by the Management/ Employer as the case may be calling for explanation giving them reasonable time. Upon receipt of such explanations, the Educational Authority will examine the explanation and pass a reasoned order.

                   (ii) If any judicial pronouncement is cited regarding the shortfalls/ objections in the explanation, then in the reasoned order, the Educational Authority will specifically address the legal position laid down by the said judicial pronouncement.

                   (iii) It is emphasized that avoiding referring to and avoiding considering the legal position laid down in the judicial pronouncement would be viewed seriously and may result in action under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

                   (iv) The State Government will issue necessary instructions or government resolutions in furtherance of the Government Resolution dated 6 February 2012, incorporating the aforesaid directions to all Educational Authorities in the State within six weeks. We place the responsibility on the Director of Education, State of Maharashtra, for the issuance of such instructions.

                   B. (i) The State Government, within six weeks, will issue necessary instructions to the Educational Authorities whose orders are appealable as per the Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024 to incorporate in the order that the aggrieved party has the remedy of appeal to the appellate forum/grievance committee constituted under the Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024.

                   (ii) The State Government shall give adequate publicity to the constitution of the appellate forum/ grievance committees through various modes as may be available.

                   (iii) The State Government will issue necessary directions to the appellate forum/ grievance committees within two weeks to finalize the internal procedure as contemplated under the Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024 within a period of six weeks thereafter.

                   (iv) We place emphasis on the Clause in the Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024 that the appellate forum/Grievance Committees will consider not only government policies, resolutions, circulars, and orders but also judicial decisions relating to the subject.

                   C. (i) We take note of the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024 laying down the procedure for complying with the Court orders. The Educational Authorities will scrupulously follow the mandatory directions issued by the State Government regarding compliance with the Court orders.

                   (ii) It is directed that if any legal position concerning the tripartite relationship between the employees, Management and the State Government in respect of the subject matter is laid down by this Court and if the said legal position is accepted by the State Government, then within a reasonable time the State Government shall issue circular/notification/government resolution instructing the Educational Authorities in consonance with the legal position so laid down.

                   D. The above timelines will come into effect from the date the order is uploaded.”

7. Thus, the Division Bench issued directions as regards the procedure to be followed by the educational authorities. Further and by way Government Resolution a mechanism has been provided to deal with the subjects not covered under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service Regulation) Act, 1979 and Rules 1981 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity and convenience referred as to the ‘M.E.P.S. Act’ and ‘M.E.P.S. Rules’) made thereunder.

8. Thereafter, on 25-10-2024, the Division Bench at Aurangabad in Komal’s case (supra) upheld the validity of the said Government Resolution. On 19-12-2024, the Division Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Santhas’s case (supra) referred the issue mentioned above to the Larger Bench. The decision of the Larger Bench is awaited.

9. That being so, we are of the considered view that in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory (supra) until the reference is answered by the Larger Bench, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Nitin Tadge and Komal’s case will have to be followed and since the validity of the Government Resolution has been upheld, the grievances/complaints enlisted in the Government Resolution will have to be processed in terms of the mechanism provided in the said Government Resolution coupled with the directions issued by the Court in Nitin Tadge’s case.

10. We may note here that in Nitin Tadge’s case the Division Bench took note of the fact that for petty matters which are not covered under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, the educational institutes and their employees are required to approach the High Court. The petty matters include denial of personal recognition of teaching and non teaching staff, the cases relating to rejection of transfer of teaching and non-teaching staff, refusal to upgrade the post of part-time librarian to that of full-time librarian, cases relating to pay revision, pay increments and pay scale, cases relating to pension and pension benefits etc. The Division Bench was of the view that despite the legal position having been settled on these issues, the authorities of Education Department while passing orders ignore the legal position. This practice results into needless litigations. The Court also took note of the fact that there are many aided schools and institutions in Maharashtra and therefore there are number of applications seeking approval. Resultantly, the litigation arising from the inaction/and actions of the authorities of the Education Department on these applications is substantial. The Division Bench was not really concerned with the number of matters but was more concerned about the reasons leading to these petitions, one of which was inaction on the part of the educational authorities.

11. During the course of hearing of the bunch of said petitions learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners therein suggested to create an appellate forum from the orders passed by the officers of the education department against the Management and/or the employees arising out of tripartite relations concerning approval etc. Learned Advocate General showed willingness to do so as it would substantially reduce the litigation. Accordingly learned Advocate General called for the input from the Advocates appearing for the parties and held a joint meeting with them. A draft resolution proposed to be issued by the Government was circulated. The Counsels appearing for the petitioners made certain suggestions and thereafter was issued the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 27-03-2024.

12. In the said petitions, Mr. Ram Karode, learned Counsel instructed by Mr Vinod P. Sangvikar, Advocate appeared for the petitioners in the connected matter viz. Writ Petition No.1493/2024. As noted earlier, the Government Resolution was issued in terms of the suggestions made by the Counsels appearing for the petitioners. Thus, there is every reason to believe that Mr. Karode, Advocate was one of the participants and supported the issuance of Government resolution. Surprisingly he appeared for the petitioners in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Santha’s case challenging validity of the the issuance of Government Resolution in so far as it creates an appellate forum. Mr. Ram Karode, learned Advocate, did not disclose to the Division Bench that he had appeared in the earlier petition and further that the Government Resolution was the outcome of the joint efforts of the Government and counsels appearing for the parties.

13. We, accordingly, enquired as to his authority to appear for the petitioners in the matter questioning the issuance of Government Resolution to which he submits that, though his name is shown in the column of counsel appearing for the petitioners, he did not participate in those proceedings, nor did he attend the meeting convened by the learned Advocate General.

14. The statement is unacceptable inasmuch as he has neither disclosed so nor did he apprise the Division Bench during the course of hearing of his status when he argued the matter in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Santha’s case.

15. Thus, on one hand he encouraged to issue Government Resolution and on the other hand, he proceeded to challenge the very same Government Resolution. He has thus failed to discharge his duties as an officer of the Court. We accordingly deprecate the inconsistent and dual stand adopted by Mr. Karode, Advocate. However, for the present, we refrain from taking any further action and merely caution him that any recurrence of such conduct shall entail a reference to the Bar Council for appropriate action in accordance with law.

16. Coming back to the decision in Nitin Tadge (supra), the Court summarized the issue in following terms :

                   “36. To summarize, the earlier orders reproduced above are self-explanatory, as are the Government Resolutions. Therefore. taking an overall view of the matter and the purpose for which the entire exercise is carried out, we propose to issue certain directions. Our main emphasis is on the refusal of educational authorities to follow the legal position in judicial pronouncements. Almost all authorities of the Education Department of the State are well-versed in their subject, and it cannot be that it is out of ignorance that the judicial pronouncements are side-stepped. Such conduct results in notices for contempt being issued. Either an apology is tendered, or the Court proceeds to pass a deterrent order. Therefore, we make it clear that if any judicial pronouncement is cited before the Educational Authority, which has a bearing on the subject matter, then it shall be the duty of the concerned officer to deal with the same. If the officer intends to distinguish the same as not applicable to the facts of the case, then reasons can be given, but if it completely ignores the decision placed before it, it cannot be countenanced. Therefore, such conscious refusal to deal with the decisions cite amount to and would be considered a breach of the directions Court. This is necessary because this behaviour is giving unwarranted litigation. Furthermore, the same is also expectee the appellate forum. In fact, the Government Resolution dated 6 February 2012 specifically provides for the same.

                   37. The constant burden of litigation between te Management, and the State Government harms society in ways. Firstly, it puts unnecessary strain on school management teachers, diverting their time and resources from teaching learning. This affects the quality of education and creates uncertainty within employees and management. Moreover, the financial costs associated with litigation are significant. Litigation drains res that could otherwise be invested in improving educational facilities.

                   38. We propose to divide the operative part of the juc into two parts. In Part I, we dispose of the individual petition direction. In Part II, we lay down the procedure and mandate tobe followed in the matters governing permission and approvals education authorities. According to us, the directions in Part regards the procedure to be followed by the Educational Authorities while deciding the proposals in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 6 February 2012, directions to the appellate authorities/grievance redressal committees and directions to the State Government to issue necessary instructions in consonance with the legal position laid down by this Court and accepted by the State Government would substantially alleviate the hardship suffered by the Management and the employees. It may also reduce the burden on the State exchequer and curtail needless litigations involving the State Authorities. It is to be noted that the directions in Part II of the operative part of the judgment are issued after various hearings with inputs from the Advocates for the parties, the learned Advocate General and the officers of the State.”

17. Thus, the fundamental rationale for constituting the Grievance Committee/Appellate Forum was to streamline the decision making process in cases where the legal position is settled by judicial pronouncements. In Komal’s case, the Division Bench took note of the concerns expressed in Nitin Tadge’s case and observed that the State Government had evolved a strategy in the form of the Government Resolution to streamline the process for dealing with the petty issues, and not to introduce any alternative forum to any existing statutory forum. The Division Bench was of the view that the words used in the Government Resolution viz., “appeal”, “evidence”, “hearing”, “decision” etc. are not to be understood in legal parlance nor are they decisive factors. The purport was not to confer quasi judicial powers. The Court further observed that the words “hearing”, “arguments” and “evidence” are not necessarily meant to suggest the trappings of quasi-judicial functions. These are merely indicative of fair play which ordinarily needs to be followed while discharging any administrative function. The Court also took note of the fact that under the Government Resolution the powers are not conferred upon the Committees to issue summons to the witnesses, to administer an oath, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine the witnesses on oath, to receive evidence, nor is remedy of appeal or revision or review provided against the decisions of the Committee. Thus, the jurisdiction of Civil Court or the other forum has not been excluded expressly or implidely. Accordingly, it was held that the Committees are not a creation of any forum under Articles 223-A and 223-B of the Constitution of India. The Committees were said to be in the nature of an executive forum. The Division Bench then examine the competence of the State Government to issue the said Government Resolution. It refers to various provisions and the judgments on the point and held that the State Government is competent to issue the said Government Resolution as the Committees constituted under the Government Resolution are exercising administrative functions and therefore the question of violation of principles of separation of powers would not arise.

18. In the case of Shri Agrasen Shikshan Santha, the petitioner therein invited attention of the Division Bench to the M.E.P.S. Rules to contend that the grievances/complaints enlisted in the Government Resolution which are to be redressed by the Grievance Committee are covered under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules framed thereunder. He placed before the Court a chart indicating relevant rules to deal with the respective subject matter. He referred to Rule 8(2) to point out that cases involving denial of approval of appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff are taken up by the Education Office (Primary and Secondary). Cases of refusal to upgrade part-time posts to full-time posts of Higher Secondary Teachers are covered under Rules 7 and 8. The other rules were also referred to contend that adequate provision is available to redress the grievance of the educational institutions and the teaching and non teaching staff. The Court found substance in the submissions and held that the matters which are to be taken up and decided by the Grievance Redressal Committee under the Government Resolution would relate to the powers exercisable under the M.E.P.S. Rule and the Secondary School Code.

19. We have gone through the relevant rules to find that these rules provide for the duties of the Management and the educational authorities to implement the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act while making appointments, granting approval to the appointments etc. Thus what is provided is the authority to take a decision. There is, however, no provision to address a contingency where a decision is not taken, firstly within time and secondly in terms of law laid down by this Court. The petitioners in the case of Nitin Tadge pointed out to the Court that despite the legal position being declared and despite the State Government not challenging the said decision, no follow up instructions are given by the Government to implement the position of law. Their concern was taken up by the Court and then the Court expressed its view in following terms :

                   “35. The learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that the core issue is that despite the legal position being declared and though the State does not challenge the said decision, no follow-up instructions are given by the Government to implement the position of law. It is always open to the State if a view taken in the judicial pronouncements by the High Court is not acceptable to it then to challenge the same in a higher forum. But if the State accept the legal position as laid down by this Court, then the State Government must issue necessary instructions to its officers to follow the legal position. We do not say it is a general procedure of law, but in matters governing approval of the Education Department, the non-issuance of such instructions leads to maladies that we have highlighted. The State will have to examine the legal position laid down in the judgments and orders rendered by this Court interpreting or setting aside any Government Resolution or Circular or Instructions concerning the tripartite relationship and if the State Government does not challenge the said decision then, within a reasonable time, the State should issue necessary Government Resolution/ Circular/ Instructions to align with the position of law so declared and accepted.”

20. Thus, what is envisaged under the Government Resolution is a mechanism for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, so also the law laid down by this Court. In doing so, the petitioners therein suggested, and the Court accepted the creation of an appellate forum against the orders passed by the officers of the Education Department against the management and/or employees. This creation of an appellate forum led the Court in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha’s case to examine the scope of Article 162 of the Constitution of India to hold that the State Legislature, in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, cannot create a position that overlaps, with one, already governed by the Rules framed under the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules or Secondary School Code. Accordingly reference was made to Larger Bench.

21. Thus, what transpires is that there is a consistent ignorance of the legal position at the hands of the Education Department. Further the decision on the subject matter is not taken in time. The aggrieved party therefore is required to approach the Court to seek directions to decide the proposal in a stipulated time or to direct the authorities to take a decision in accordance with law laid down by this Court. These litigations are definitely avoidable and therefore mechanism is created by way of the aforesaid Government Resolution. The said mechanism, in our view, is helpful to effectively implement the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules made thereunder so also to ensure that the law laid down by this Court is followed in letter and spirit. So far as the creation of Appellate Forum is concerned, the reference will be answered in due course. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the appellate authority under the said Government Resolution is exercising appellate jurisdiction or is just performing supervisory jurisdiction by scrutinizing the decision taken by respective authorities.

22. On the executive powers of the State Government the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 39 with connected matters, has elaborately dealt with the scope under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and while doing so it observed thus :

                   “2o. Even assuming that the impugned teleprinter message is not relatable to the two Control Orders, the State Government undoubtedly could, in exercise of the executive power of the State, introduce a system of verification on movement of wheat from the State of Uttar Pradesh to various other States at the check-posts on the border and place restrictions on inter-district movement of wheat by traders on private account within the State. The executive power of a modern State is not capable of any precise definition. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab Mukherjea, C.J., dealt with the scope of Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution. The learned Chief Justice observed that neither of the two Articles contains any definition as to what the executive function is or gives an exhaustive enumeration of the activities which would legitimately come within its scope. It was observed: "Ordinarily the executive power connotes the residue of governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away." It is neither necessary nor possible to give an exhaustive enumeration of the kinds and categories of executive functions which may comprise both the formulation of the policy as well as its execution. In other words, the State in exercise of its executive power is charged with the duty and the responsibility of carrying on the general administration of the State. So long as the State Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power cannot be circumscribed. If there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, certainly the Government can carry on the administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that behalf. Otherwise, the administration would come to a standstill.”

23. Further in the case of Naraindas Indurkhya Vs State of M.P., reported in (1974) 4 SCC 788, reiterated the above principles and held that the State Government could act in exercise of the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution in relation to any matter with respect to which State legislature has power to make laws even if there was no legislation to support such executive action.

24. The position of law as emrges is that the State in exercise of its executive powers is charged with duty and responsibility of carrying on general administration of the State, and so long as the State Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power cannot be circumscribed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that if there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, the State Government can carry on administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that regard.

25. Learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners, however, submitted that inclusion of officers of the Education Department as members of the Grievance Redressal Committee may result in the continuation of the very approach which has given rise to the present spate of litigation. It is contended that such an arrangement may not effectively address the grievances and may instead lead to further disputes. Learned Counsels further pointed out that under various enactments, including Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, dedicated Grievance Committee have been constituted. It was, therefore, suggested that a similar mechanism should be incorporated under the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules thereunder.

26. As such, we do not subscribe to the apprehension expressed by the Counsels that the Grievance Committee consisting of officials of the Education Department would not be an effective mechanism. The Government Resolution under question provides for the procedure to process the files. In addition, the Division Bench, in the case of Nitin Tadge (supra) has issued certain directions for proper implementation of the mechanism. There appears no reason why should this arrangement not work. Nevertheless, since the Legislature, under the aforesaid enactments, has considered it appropriate to provide for a Grievance Redressal Committee, we are of the considered opinion that the mechanism contemplated under the Government Resolution would attain greater efficacy and permanence if it is accorded statutory backing. Accordingly, we request the State Government to take appropriate steps for incorporating suitable provisions in this regard. We are further of the view that, until such statutory framework is put in place, the mechanism created under the Government Resolution for redressal of grievances of educational institutions and their teaching and non-teaching staff shall operate and be treated as directions/guidelines issued by this Court. The State Government may also consider amending Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act so as to enable aggrieved party to approach the School Tribunal for redressal of their grievances against the decision taken by Education Authorities in the subject matters enlisted in Government Resolution.

27. The Counsels appearing for both the sides have thus invited our attention to Rules 41A of the M.E.P.S .Rules. The said Rule has been amended and the transfer of a teacher from an unaided school to a vacant post in a partially aided or aided school has been made subject to the prior approval of the Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra, Pune. Prior to the amendment, such approval was accorded by the Education Officer or the Deputy Director. Learned Counsel submits that there is no provision in the Government Resolution to address the grievance against the decision on approval taken by the Commissioner (Education). It was accordingly suggested that an additional Grievance Redressal Committee be constituted at the State level, to be headed by the Secretary of the Education Department, Government of Maharashtra having officer not below the rank of Superintendent in the office of the Secretary of the Education Department, who shall function as the Member-Secretary. We appreciate the concern expressed in this regard and deem it appropriate to incorporate the necessary guidelines to address the same.

28. We also note that the provisions of the Government Resolution are made applicable to the orders passed w.e.f. 01-01-2024. We are of the view that in an appropriate case the Court may think to relegate the matter to the Grievance Redressal Committee even where the order has been passed prior to 01-01-2024 and if the matter is so relegated to the Grievance Redressal Committee, it shall be processed in accordance with the guidelines issued by us in the instant judgment. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :

                   ORDER

                   (i) Pending a legislative decision and the incorporation of appropriate statutory provisions on the subject, the mechanism created under the Government Resolution for redressal of grievances of educational institutions and their teaching and non-teaching staff shall operate and be treated as directions/guidelines issued by this Court.

                   (ii) In addition to Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by Government Resolution dated 27-03-2024, the State Government shall constitute an additional Grievance Redressal Committee at the State level, to be headed by the Secretary of the Education Department, Government of Maharashtra having officer not below the rank of Superintendent in the office of the Secretary of the Education Department, who shall function as the Member-Secretary.

                   (iii) The Grievance Redressal Committee/ Appellate Forum while processing the complaint/grievance lodged by the aggrieved party shall also examine the action/inaction of the officials in the light of the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act 2005, particularly Section 10 thereof and shall take necessary action by following the procedure laid down.

                   (iv) The petitioners herein shall approach the Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate forum within 06 weeks from today.

                   (v) The complaint/grievance so filed shall be decided in accordance with the guidelines issued above.

                   (vi) The State Government shall issue consolidated directions to process the files in accordance with the guidelines which we have suggested and shall include the directions issued by this Court in Nitin Tadge’s case.

                   (vii) The copy of the order shall be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, for taking appropriate steps.

29. The petitions are disposed of in terms of above.