Judgment : (S.A. BOBDE, J.) Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellants have been dismissed. By the Writ Petition, the appellants had challenged the order of the Grievances Committee of the University under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 directing that the appellants should pay to the respondents the difference in salary between the Fourth & Fifth Pay Commissions from the date the scales of the Fifth Pay Commission are made applicable to the unaided colleges affiliated to the University. The appellant no.1 is an educational Trust which runs the appellant no.2 B.Ed. College. The college is an unaided college affiliated to the Nagpur University. The college is run on the no-grants basis and its income is generated through the tuitions fees from the students. The respondent No.3 in all these appeals are Lecturers in the appellant no.2 college. After the Fifth Pay Commission scales were implemented, all the respondents preferred an appeal before the Grievances Committee of the University constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. In the appeals, the respondents prayed that they be paid the difference in salary. The appeals were all filed on 27th November, 2006. The respondents have prayed in the appeal that the appellant College be directed to pay their salary according to the Fifth Pay Commission including all arrears. 3. The Grievances Committee issued a notice to the appellants and heard the matter. It came to the conclusion that the appellants are liable to pay salary in terms of the revision under the Fifth Pay Commission and, therefore, directed the appellant college to pay such salaries from the date from which the revision of scales has been ordered under the Fifth Pay Commission. Interestingly, the Grievances Committee disposed of the appeal itself. Even though the Committee disposed of the appeal, it submitted the report to the respondent University. 4. The Management Council approved the decision of the Grievances Committee on 24.4.2008. This was communicated by the Registrar of the University to the appellant by letter dated 29.4.2008 stating as follows :- "I am to inform you that the Grievances Committee has considered and decided the above Appeal. 4. The Management Council approved the decision of the Grievances Committee on 24.4.2008. This was communicated by the Registrar of the University to the appellant by letter dated 29.4.2008 stating as follows :- "I am to inform you that the Grievances Committee has considered and decided the above Appeal. The recommendation of the Grievances Committee has been approved by the Management Council in its meeting held on 24th April, 2008 vide item No.99 as per provisions under Section 57(2). A copy of the decision approved by the Management Council is enclosed herewith. The Respondent in Appeal is directed to implement the decision of the Grievances Committee, which was approved by the Management Council, within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this letter and send compliance report to the undersigned. It may kindly be noted that the above decision of the Grievances Committee is final, binding and conclusive as per provisions under Section 57(2) and 81(1)(h). If the Respondent fails, without any reasonable cause to comply with any direction issued by the Grievances Committee under Section 57(2) within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this letter penal action will be taken against the Respondent as per Section 63 (1) of Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 as decided by the Management Council." The aforesaid two decisions were challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, as stated earlier, has dismissed the petitions finding no fault with the impugned orders. Hence, these appeals. 5. Shri Z.A. Haq, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the effect of the order of the Grievances Committee is that the appellants have been made liable to pay arrears for a period greater than three years, i.e. from the date of implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission on 1.8.2000 to the date of the application, i.e. 27.11.2006. According to the learned Counsel, such a power is not even conferred on a Civil Court which is restricted by the law of limitation and, therefore, the Management Council could not have approved the decision of the Grievance Committee. In fact, according to the learned Counsel, the Management Council which is the authority actually empowered to take a decision, did not even hear the appellants and there was no opportunity to raise this objection before the Council. In fact, according to the learned Counsel, the Management Council which is the authority actually empowered to take a decision, did not even hear the appellants and there was no opportunity to raise this objection before the Council. Further, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the procedure that has been followed by the Grievances Committee and the Management Council in the present case is absolutely contrary to the provisions of Section 57(2) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 in that the Grievance Committee which was merely called upon to hear the grievance, prepare a report and forward the same to the Management Council has not only heard the grievance but has decided and disposed of the appeal itself. Further the Management Council which is called upon to consider the report of Grievances Committee and then take a final decision has apparently considered the report of the Grievances Committee as final and binding and has merely approved that report even without giving an opportunity of hearing. 6. According to the petitioners, a serious error has, therefore, crept in the proceedings, namely that the Management Council which is empowered to take a final decision has not even heard the parties and the Grievances Committee which is not empowered to take a final decision has heard the parties. Section 57(2) of the Maharashtra Universities Act reads as follows :- "S.57(2) It shall be lawful for the grievances committee to entertain and consider grievances or complaints which are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and report to the Management Council to take such action as it deems fit and the decisions of the Management Council on such reports shall be final." Section 57(2) contemplates two stages for dealing with the grievances of teachers and other employees of the University, colleges, etc. Sub-section (2) empowers the Grievances Committee to entertain and consider grievances or complaints and make a report to the Management Council. It is the Management Council which is empowered to take such action as it deems fit, the decision of the Management Council being final. Thus, the sub-section (2) casts a duty on the Grievances Committee to "consider grievances" and "report to the Management Council" and further the sub-section casts a duty on the Management Council "to take such an action as it deems fit". Thus, the sub-section (2) casts a duty on the Grievances Committee to "consider grievances" and "report to the Management Council" and further the sub-section casts a duty on the Management Council "to take such an action as it deems fit". A similar situation was considered by the Supreme Court in Rasid Javed & others vs. State of U.P. & another reported in AIR 2010 SC 2275 where the Supreme Court observed that an authority which was empowered to hear, i.e. the hearing authority did not have power to approve or modify the scheme under the notification and was only empowered to hear the objections and prepare a report and the deciding authority, i.e. the State Government which was empowered to approve and propose modification or modify the approved scheme, therefore, had to hear the objections. In that case, separate stages of decision making were contemplated by notification. Their Lordships observed as follows :- "35........................ The Notification dated April 16, 1999 does not empower the Hearing Authority to approve or modify the scheme; he has only been empowered to hear the objections. That a person who hears must decide and that divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing is too fundamental a proposition to be doubted. This settled principle has also been highlighted by this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao ( AIR 1959 SC 308 ) but based on such principle the limited authority of hearing given to the Hearing Authority by the State Government cannot be treated as enlarged in its scope. A delegatee must confine his activity within four corners of the powers invested in him and if he has acted beyond that, his action cannot have any legal sanction unless ratified by the delegator." "36. A distinction must be maintained where the hearing authority is empowered by the State Government to hear objections and approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme and a case where the hearing authority is authorized to hear the objections/ representations relating to the proposed modification to the approved scheme. In the latter case, the authority delegated to the Hearing Authority is limited and he is not authorized to approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme. In the latter case, the authority delegated to the Hearing Authority is limited and he is not authorized to approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme. The present case falls in the latter category and accordingly the order of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 is in excess of the authority given to him and cannot be construed as a final order of approval under Section 102(1) of the 1988 Act.............." 7. We are of the considered view that under Section 57(2) of the Act, the Grievance Committee is only empowered to hear grievances and prepare a report. It may or may not afford a hearing depending upon the nature of the controversy and the facts. On this aspect, the Supreme Court has made the following observations in the Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and another reported in (1977) 2 SCC 256 :- "............. Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cureall. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt - that is the conscience of the matter." The Grievances Committee after preparing the report must forward the report to the Management Council which alone has been empowered to take the final decision and pass an appropriate order. Since the Management Council is conferred with this responsibility, it is clear that the Management Council can exercise this power only after hearing parties. What has happened in the present case is that the Management Council has not heard the appellants at all. This procedure has, therefore, resulted in a complete breach of the Rules of natural justice. In Gallapalli Nageswara Rao and others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 , the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "31. This procedure has, therefore, resulted in a complete breach of the Rules of natural justice. In Gallapalli Nageswara Rao and others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 , the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "31. The second objection is that while the Act and the Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules impose a duty on the Secretary to hear and the Chief Minister to decide. This divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure." We, therefore, find that the impugned decision of the Management Council dated 24.4.2008 is void in law. 8. In the result, we set aside the order of the Grievances Committee since it finally disposed of the appeal instead of merely submitting a report and the order of the Management Council in that it is vitiated by violation of rules of natural justice. The appeals must, therefore, succeed. The Appeals are allowed. Order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. The matter is remanded back to the Grievances Committee for fresh decision in accordance with the law. It appears that the difference in salary between the Fourth & Fifth Pay Commissions has not been paid to the respondents though apparently some additional amounts have been paid. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to direct the appellants to deposit half of the difference in salary to which the respondents are eligible on account of the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission scales for a period of three years next before 27.11.2006 and onwards before the Grievances Committee within a period of six weeks from today. The Grievances Committee shall invest the said amount in the Fixed Deposit of a Nationalised Bank for a period of such suitable time during the pendency of the appeal. The Grievances Committee shall decide the dispute within a period of three months. The Management Council shall take a decision within a period of six months from 27.7.2011.