JUDGMENT (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and the learned AGP for Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The Petitioner Union, admittedly, is a recognized Union of Respondent No. 1 Corporation. Respondent No.1 is an autonomous Statutory Corporation formed under the provisions of The State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The said Corporation offers financial services and transacts business of giving loans and other business services as set out in Section 25 of the State Financial Corporation Act. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is that though a resolution has been passed by the Board of Directors of Respondent No.1 approving the revised pay scale of its employees as per the VIth Pay Commission and had recommended the same in its meeting held on 1.2.2012, the said resolution has not been implemented by the Board of Directors. It is contended that in the subsequent meeting, which was held, the Board of Directors had reiterated their earlier decision and it was resolved in the said meeting that the Corporation should wait for a period of one month in order to get approval of Respondent No.2 –State of Maharashtra. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the approval of Respondent No.2 is not necessary since the Respondent No.1 is an autonomous body. It is further submitted that under section 23 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the Corporation has power and authority to lay down the service conditions of its employees including pay scales and remuneration is payable by them. It is submitted that section 23 of the said Act was amended by virtue of the Amendment Act 39 of 2000 with effect from 5.9.2000 and the proviso which was added to the said section by Amendment Act 77 of 1972 was omitted. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the omission of the proviso, the approval of the State Government is no longer necessary. 5. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the omission of the proviso, the approval of the State Government is no longer necessary. 5. Respondent No.1 has also filed an affidavit in reply in which they have admitted that the Board of Directors had passed a resolution in its meeting in which they have agreed to give revised pay scale in terms of VIth Pay Commission Report. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that since no approval has been received from the State of Maharashtra, the revision of the pay scale has not been implemented. 6. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that Respondent No.1 has incurred revenue losses. He has invited our attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Government of Maharashtra. He submitted that in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit in reply, it is stated that as on 31.3.2013, Respondent No.1 Corporation had suffered losses, which were around Rs. 570.92 crores. It is further stated in the affidavit in reply that the Government of Maharashtra has extended the financial assistance to the Respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs. 136.49 crores in various forms as on 31.3.2013 so as to overcome their immediate financial burden. It is further stated that Respondent No.1 has already stopped granting loans since 2005 -2006. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in view of the precarious financial condition of Respondent No.1, the State Government has not granted approval so far and Respondent No.1 has already sent the file seeking remarks of the Financial Department and the said approval is awaited. 7. After having heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents, in our view, there is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Before we take into consideration the rival submissions, it is necessary to consider the said section 23 which reads as under: “23. 7. After having heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents, in our view, there is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Before we take into consideration the rival submissions, it is necessary to consider the said section 23 which reads as under: “23. Officers and other employees of the Financial Corporation - The Financial Corporation may appoint such officers, advisers and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, and determine, by regulations, their conditions of appointment and service and the remuneration payable to them : (Added by Sec.14, ibid)[Provided that the State Government may, in consultation with and after obtaining the advice of the (Subs. By Act 52 of 1975, Sec.34, for the words “Reserve Bank” (w.e.f. 16th February, 1976). [Development Bank], specify the class or categories of posts in respect of which appointments may be made by the Board on such remuneration and other conditions of service as the Board may determine, and no regulation made under this Act shall apply to such posts in respect of matters so determined by the Board.]” The proviso to section 23 was inserted by the Amendment Act 77 of 1972 which provided that the State Government after obtaining advice of the Development Bank would decide the question of remuneration and other conditions of service which are determined by the Board. The said proviso, however, was deleted and omitted by the Amendment Act 31 of 2000 with effect from 5.9.2000. In view of the deletion of the said clause, therefore, it is no longer necessary to obtain prior approval of the State Government. Since the Petitioner is a Financial Corporation and it is an autonomous body, having power to determine the conditions of appointment and services as also the remuneration which is payable to its employees, it is not necessary for the Board of Directors to obtain prior approval of the State Government. The contention of the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State is not accepted. The contention of the State Government that on account of losses suffered by Respondent No.1 Corporation, it will not be possible to extend the benefit of VIth Pay Commission is without any substance. The contention of the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State is not accepted. The contention of the State Government that on account of losses suffered by Respondent No.1 Corporation, it will not be possible to extend the benefit of VIth Pay Commission is without any substance. It has to be noted here that so far as conditions of service and remuneration of the employees of Respondent No.1 are concerned, these are matters for Respondent No.1 Corporation to consider and, therefore, will not be dependent on the other factors and, as such, the reasons given by the State Government for not giving the approval cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has rightly pointed out that the approval of the State Government is no longer necessary or required since the Respondent No.1 Corporation is an autonomous body. Under these circumstances, in our view, Respondent No.1 need not wait till the approval is given by the State Government and shall implement the said decision, which was taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 29.11.2012, by giving the benefit of VIth Pay Commission to its employees. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.