JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioners in all these petitions are employees of respondent Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Some of them were working as teachers while the others were working on different posts on administrative side in various departments of Corporation. For the purpose of present writ petitions, it is not necessary to go into individual details. All petitioners claim benefit of sixth wage revision from 1.1.2006 with arrears thereof till their respective date of retirement and then fixing their pension accordingly. They challenge the decision of Corporation to extend benefit of said wage revision only from December, 2010 and not to pay any arrears for period prior thereto. 2. In so far as the dispute in relation to teachers is concerned, this court has on 13th February, 2013 passed following order in W.P. No. 4542/2012. "Heard. Question is, how non -government aided schools need to be understood in the background of definition of private schools under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Submission of Mr. Mohagaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners is, all schools i.e. private schools and schools run by local authorities, which are receiving grant -in -aid but are not under control of the State Government or are not run by State Government, need to be understood as non -government aided schools. Schools run by Nagpur Municipal Corporation receive 100% aid and, hence, in terms of Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 read with the Government Resolution dated 12/06/2009, the petitioners are entitled to sixth wage revision from 01/01/2006. Action of Corporation in extending the same from 01/12/2010 is, therefore, arbitrary. Mr. Puranik, learned Counsel for respondent nos.3, 4 and 6 and Ms. Khan, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 and 5, are not accepting this. Learned Counsel Mr. Puranik submits that Corporation has got aided schools as also unaided schools. For aided schools, it is receiving grant -in -aid from State Government and expenditure of unaided schools is incurred through its own resources by Corporation. The resources of Corporation permit it to extend benefit of sixth wage revision on uniform basis from 01/12/2010 and, therefore, its benefit cannot be given to any teacher for period from 01/01/2006 till 30/11/2010. According to him, it may result in discrimination. The resources of Corporation permit it to extend benefit of sixth wage revision on uniform basis from 01/12/2010 and, therefore, its benefit cannot be given to any teacher for period from 01/01/2006 till 30/11/2010. According to him, it may result in discrimination. After hearing respective Counsel for parties, we find that the stand of Corporation gives rise to certain other questions. If Corporation is maintaining only one cadre for its teachers, teachers may be recruited by following due procedures against all available vacancies i.e. vacancies in aided schools and unaided schools. They may have been transferred also in these schools. Thus, it may be difficult to recognize any particular individual as a teacher recruited or working in aided schools. Reply filed by the Corporation also shows that it has received amount of Rs.5,81,94,834/- as grants towards arrears on account of sixth wage revision for period from March, 2009 to September, 2009. It is possible that Government may release the arrears also for concerned teachers for period from 01/01/2006 onwards. However, in absence of any specific reply or statement from Government in this respect, we are not in a position to conclude this aspect. We, therefore, direct respondent nos.1, 2 and 5 to file appropriate reply -affidavit in this respect within a period of six weeks. Similarly, we also direct respondent no.3 -Commissioner to explain as to how distinction can be made amongst teachers to justify receipt of above mentioned arrears from State Government. Respondent no.3 to file appropriate - affidavit also in the meanwhile. Liberty to petitioners to add Nagpur Municipal Corporation as party respondent. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. Learned Counsel Mr. Puranik waives notice for added respondent. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties to act upon." 3. It is in this background that we have heard Advocate B.M. Khan, Advocate A.G. Mohagaonkar and Advocate Sudame on behalf of petitioners. Advocate Puranik has opposed the petitions on behalf of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, while respective learned Assistant Govt. Pleaders have opposed the petitions on behalf of the State of Maharashtra through its Education Department and Finance department, as also its over officers. 4. Respective counsel for petitioners state that refusal to extend benefit of sixth wage revision from 1.12.2010 is bad in law and unsustainable inasmuch as State Govt. has extended such benefits to its employees from 1.1.2006. Pleaders have opposed the petitions on behalf of the State of Maharashtra through its Education Department and Finance department, as also its over officers. 4. Respective counsel for petitioners state that refusal to extend benefit of sixth wage revision from 1.12.2010 is bad in law and unsustainable inasmuch as State Govt. has extended such benefits to its employees from 1.1.2006. It is further submitted that the denial of arrears for period from 1.1.2006 to 30.11.2010 on account of such wage revision is also arbitrary. Respective counsel state that the employees who retired after 1.1.2006 but before 30th November, 2010 cannot be denied corresponding pension in accordance with the increased wages as notional increments for said period have been released in favour of those who have continued in service after 30th of November, 2010. Our attention has been invited to Nagpur Municipal Corporation Service Bye -laws, 1963 which adopted the provisions of Bombay Civil Services 1959 and consequently, the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules regulate the conditions of service of all employees of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. They submit that in view of these service bye -laws, Nagpur Municipal Corporation is duty bound to extend benefit of State wage revision Rules from 1.1.2006 to all its employees and to pay the arrears accruing on that account. The denial of payment of arrears is high handed and arbitrary. 5. In so far as teachers are concerned, our attention has been invited to a letter dated 17.1.2014 by Education Officer of Nagpur Municipal Corporation to Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur. It is pointed out that as per said communication, Corporation has pointed out that five persons named therein who retired as head masters or assistant teachers between various dates from 31.7.2006 to 30.6.2010 are receiving revised pension from December, 2010. Petitioners state that some schools of Nagpur Municipal Corporation have actually disbursed salary as per 5th pay scale recommendations though grants were released and received for paying salary as per sixth wage revision. Education Officer has pointed out that accordingly an amount of Rs.3,51,27,492/- was not disbursed by Corporation and was lying with it. Learned counsel thus states that in any case for teachers working in Corporation, Government has released requisite funds and still benefit thereof is not allowed to reach concerned teachers. Education Officer has pointed out that accordingly an amount of Rs.3,51,27,492/- was not disbursed by Corporation and was lying with it. Learned counsel thus states that in any case for teachers working in Corporation, Government has released requisite funds and still benefit thereof is not allowed to reach concerned teachers. In these circumstances, petitioners demand suitable revision in pay scale of teachers who have retired before 30.11.2010 and fixation of their pension accordingly. They also claim actual benefit of wage revision from 1.1.2006 at par with State Government employees and payment of arrears accordingly for period from 1.1.2006 till 30th November, 2010. During arguments, interest on this amount which has been wrongfully withheld has also been asked for. 6. Shri Puranik, the learned counsel appearing for respondent, as also learned Assistant Govt. Pleaders have strongly opposed the petitions. They state that Nagpur Municipal Corporation is a distinct establishment and an employer on whom the recommendations of State Government are not binding automatically. It is submitted that the Corporation has to examine its own financial position and then decide whether benefit of sixth wage revision can be extended to its employees or take a decision on date from which said benefit can be extended. It is submitted that considering the financial and other provisions, benefit of sixth wage revision has been extended to the employees from 1.12.2010. However, while doing so precaution has been taken by releasing notional increments from 1.1.2006 for period upto 1st December, 2010 and though arrears on account of such notional increments are denied, the salary payable to employees from 1.12.2010 has been properly arrived at. The reliance upon provisions of service bye -laws for said purpose is argued to be misplaced. Shri Puranik submits that bye -laws does not cast upon Corporation the obligation which it is incompetent to discharge. 7. He has further submitted that the State Government has issued GR on 12.6.2009 extending sixth Pay Commission salary to teachers working in grant in aid and private primary and secondary school with effect from 1.1.2006. He has further submitted that sixth Pay Commission salary has been made applicable to all employees of Corporation only from 1.12.2010 as they constitute one class. He has further submitted that sixth Pay Commission salary has been made applicable to all employees of Corporation only from 1.12.2010 as they constitute one class. Advocate Puranik submits that in case of retired employees, though their last pay was looked into as per 5th wage revision, later on increased salary and retiral benefits as per sixth wage revision have been worked out. But as question of payment of arrears is still not resolved, no further decision in that respect has been taken. He has further submitted that petitioners have made representation to Education Officer and other authorities for release of sixth wage revision and pensionary benefits from 1.1.2006 but that issue is still not resolved. He has also explained how salary grants to the tune of Rs.5,81,94,834/- were received from Zilla Parishad, Nagpur for period from March, 2009 to September, 2009. He submits that the Education Officer of Nagpur Municipal Corporation has clarified the position in this respect in a communication dated 17.1.2014. He states that Corporation is running schools which receive 100% grant -in -aid from State Government while there are other schools which do not receive any grant -in -aid. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation shoulders financial burden of salary of teachers working in such non -aided schools. The Corporation being single employer cannot distinguish between teachers working in schools receiving grant -in -aid and other schools which do not receive the same. Hence, on uniform basis benefit of sixth wage revision has been made applicable to all teachers from 1.12.2010. He submits that thus there is no discrimination whatsoever practiced by Corporation. Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader relied upon reply affidavit filed by respondent no. 5 in W.P. No. 4542/2012. He also invited our attention to details given by Education Officer in earlier communication dated 8.1.2014. According to him, the petitioners have failed to bring on record any hostile discrimination. 8. Arguments noted by us supra show an effort to urge that as State Government has extended to its employees benefit of sixth wage revision from 1.1.2006, the Corporation employees, whether teachers or non -teachers, need to be paid increased wages also from same date i.e. from 1.1.2006. Support is also being taken from service bye -laws to buttress this contention. Arguments noted by us supra show an effort to urge that as State Government has extended to its employees benefit of sixth wage revision from 1.1.2006, the Corporation employees, whether teachers or non -teachers, need to be paid increased wages also from same date i.e. from 1.1.2006. Support is also being taken from service bye -laws to buttress this contention. None of the petitioners assert that Corporation has got necessary finance and therefore has capacity to shoulder the burden of revised pay scale or arrears thereof from 1.1.2006. In other words, decision of Corporation to extend that benefit from 1.12.2010 is not shown to be malafide or an abuse of power. 9. Applicability of service bye -laws is not in dispute before this court. Nagpur Municipal Corporation has filed a pursis vide Stamp no. 6780/2013 in Writ Petition No. 9/2013 and accepted its affidavit in -reply filed in W.P. No. 4542/2012 as reply even in W.P. No. 9/2013. Annexure A of that petition is copy of service bye -laws of Nagpur Corporation. The said bye -laws have been published in Govt. Gazette on 30.9.1966 and have been brought into force with retrospective effect from 1.5.1963. The bye -laws adopt provisions of Bombay Civil Service Rules 1959 as also supplementary rules, order and appendices made thereunder, as amended from time to time, to regulate the conditions of service of civil services in Nagpur Corporation. Bye -law no. 2 uses a phrase "as far as possible". It is not in dispute that accordingly Corporation has adopted Bombay Civil Services Rules as rules to regulate service conditions. Substitution of Bombay Civil Services Rules by various Maharashtra Civil Services Rules (MCSR) and regulation of services conditions thereby is also not in dispute. 10. However, the impact of phrase "as far as possible" cannot be ignored. Said phrase has been looked into by Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in 1998 (7) SCC 654 (Rajendra Singh ad others Vs. State of U.P. And others.). Hon'ble Apex Court has considered Section 12-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The substantive part of section 12-A stipulates that the prescribed authority is bound to accept the choice indicated by tenure holder while determining the surplus lands under sub section A of section 12. This obligation, however, is qualified by phrase "as far as possible". The substantive part of section 12-A stipulates that the prescribed authority is bound to accept the choice indicated by tenure holder while determining the surplus lands under sub section A of section 12. This obligation, however, is qualified by phrase "as far as possible". The Hon'ble Apex Court has in paragraph 6 found that these words connote a discretion vested in the prescribed authority which it can exercise at the time of carving the surplus area out of the total holding of a person. In present context, when said phrase or said words is/are construed in the background of wage revision, it is apparent that it indicates that discretion in the matter of fixation of such date is given to Nagpur Municipal Corporation. There was no need to employ those words/phrase in bye -law para no. 2, if the service conditions of State Government employees and wage revision extended to them have to be automatically become applicable and extended to Corporation employees also. Words "as far as possible" have been deliberately used because position of Nagpur Municipal Corporation may not always be enabling it to extend similar service conditions or then, service conditions, from similar date. Providing of new service conditions or implementing any additional benefits by an employer depends upon several factors. When employer is a local body like Municipal Corporation, its financial resources and the budgetary provisions are paramount considerations. Keeping in mind these inherent obstacles, the phrase "as far as possible" has been used. Hence, Nagpur Municipal Corporation has been empowered to decide the date from which benefits of wage revision or the mode and manner in which benefits thereof can be extended by it to its employees. The said decision needs to be taken only after keeping in mind all relevant factors. The Corporation cannot take such decision with any oblique motive. At least, in the present matter none of the petitioners has alleged any such malafides or oblique motive. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that selection of date 1.12.2010 for implementing actual benefit of sixth wage revision is arbitrary and constitutes abuse of power. There is nothing before this court to show that the denial of arrears for period from 1.1.2006 till 30.11.2010 is either arbitrary or discriminatory. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that selection of date 1.12.2010 for implementing actual benefit of sixth wage revision is arbitrary and constitutes abuse of power. There is nothing before this court to show that the denial of arrears for period from 1.1.2006 till 30.11.2010 is either arbitrary or discriminatory. The Corporation has, in fact, released notional increments and salary of Corporation employees actually in employment on 1.12.2010 has been worked out accordingly. Thus, the salary receivable by such employees on 1.12.2010 has not been affected in any way because of denial of arrears. During arguments our attention has been invited to the fact that request has been made by teaching staff, as also by other retired employees of Nagpur Municipal Corporation to release wage revision benefit from 1.1.2006. The said request may be evaluated by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation depending upon its resources. If any decision is taken by Corporation or then it is avoided by it, the concerned person/association can question that decision or omission before competent forum in accordance with law. 11. Here, we have only to take note of the fact that Corporation has stated that even in case of retired employees, it has made applicable the revised pay scales. Though no specific case as such in this connection has been argued before us, it is apparent that a corporation employee who has retired prior to 1.12.2010 can legitimately make a grievance since his last pay was in the fifth wage revision scales and he may not have been paid pension, gratuity as per sixth wage. Since he is not in employment after 1.12.2010, his salary may not have been revised in accordance with recommendations of sixth wage revision. However, the fact that Corporation has taken into account notional increments for period from 1.1.2006 till 30.11.2010 while undertaking exercise of fitment of its employees continuing in service on 1.12.2010, cannot be ignored. Thus, employees in service after 30.11.2010 are getting benefits of revised pay though notionally for arriving at their actual pay only from 1.12.2010 onwards. Denial of such notional fitments and increments to those who have retired before 1.12.2010, therefore, cannot be sustained. Had Corporation not released even notional increments in favour of its continuing employees, the situation may have been otherwise. Denial of such notional fitments and increments to those who have retired before 1.12.2010, therefore, cannot be sustained. Had Corporation not released even notional increments in favour of its continuing employees, the situation may have been otherwise. Here, an employee continuing in service on 1.12.2010 gets weightage of his service from 1.1.2006 onwards for the purpose of fixation of his salary in sixth wage revision. If he retires on 31.12.2010, his retiral benefits are thus enhanced substantially. Employee who retired before 1.12.2010 is denied that benefit only because of his superannuation as his wage is not required to be fixed in sixth wage revision. There is no rational for such classification. Employees who have retired before 1.12.2010 but after 1.1.2006 must also be given benefits of notional fixation and their last pay needs to be worked out accordingly. Their pension payable for period from 1.12.2010 onwards accordingly needs to be proportionately hiked. Though such retired employees will not get any arrears for period prior to 1.12.2010, their current pension for period from 1.12.2010 shall be revised from 1.12.2010 and they will be treated at par with those who continue in employment on and after 1.12.2010, in so far as notional extension of benefits of wage revision from 1.1.2006 is concerned. 12. The State Government has released grant to Nagpur Municipal Corporation as per sixth wage revision for period from April 2009 to November, 2010 i.e. for total 20 months for secondary schools. Though State Government through Zilla Parishad has released this amount, Education Officer of Nagpur Municipal Corporation has correctly released salary as per sixth wage revision only for said period as sixth wage revision has been made applicable by Nagpur Municipal Corporation from 1.12.2010. A perusal of communication dated 8.1.2014 sent by Education Officer to Deputy Director of Education produced by respondent no. 5 with his affidavit in W.P. No.4542/2012 shows that Corporation is having 28 secondary schools. In the year 2009. there were 22 schools and six new schools have been started in the year 2010. Out of 28 schools, 17 secondary schools receive 100% grant -in -aid for payment of salary to teaching and non -teaching staff. Thus, remaining 11 schools are not receiving such grants and the expenditure of salary of teaching and non -teaching staff of the 11 schools is shouldered by Nagpur Municipal Corporation through its own funds. Out of 28 schools, 17 secondary schools receive 100% grant -in -aid for payment of salary to teaching and non -teaching staff. Thus, remaining 11 schools are not receiving such grants and the expenditure of salary of teaching and non -teaching staff of the 11 schools is shouldered by Nagpur Municipal Corporation through its own funds. It is not in dispute that employment with Nagpur Municipal Corporation is public employment and its Education Department constitutes one homogeneous group. Employees working in various schools under Nagpur Municipal Corporation have not been and cannot be treated differently depending upon either receipt or non -receipt of grant. Similarly, as all employees with Nagpur Municipal Council need to be viewed as one class, no distinction can be made between teachers and employees working in other departments like Property, Estate, Tax, Water works, PWD, Health etc, in so far as benefit of wage revision or pension is concerned. Petitioners have not shown that Nagpur Municipal Corporation has been making any such distinction amongst its own employees. Hence, consistent approach of Nagpur Municipal Corporation in extending benefits of wage revision to all its employees from 1.12.2010 cannot be faulted with and teachers also cannot claim benefits of such wage revision from any date prior to 1.12.2010. There cannot be two classes of teachers working in Nagpur Municipal Corporation i.e. one who receive wages through grants released by State Govt. while others whose salary is paid by Nagpur Municipal Corporation. In spite of our specific order dated 13th February, 2013 supra, petitioners in W.P. No. 4542/2012 have not placed on record any material to show such classes or that Nagpur Municipal Corporation is violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Thus, the receipt of excess grants by Nagpur Municipal Corporation from Zilla Parishad or State Govt. and its appropriation or otherwise is an issue essentially between Nagpur Municipal Corporation and those authorities. It does not confer any right upon any petitioner to claim arrears on account of sixth wage revision for any period prior to 1.12.2010. It cannot be in dispute that provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1077 or those 1981 Rules framed thereunder do not apply to the schools of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Hence, any direction issued by State Govt. thereunder cannot confer any right upon teachers working with Corporation. It cannot be in dispute that provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1077 or those 1981 Rules framed thereunder do not apply to the schools of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Hence, any direction issued by State Govt. thereunder cannot confer any right upon teachers working with Corporation. Moreover, such a direction, unless it has a statutory sanction, cannot supersede the 1963 Service Bye -laws mentioned supra. 14. Respondent Corporation has in its reply affidavit filed in W.P. No. 4408/2013 explained that for payment of arrears of regular employees, it requires approximately funds of Rs.125 Crore and for discharging burden on account of arrears of salary, gratuity and pension to retired employees, it may need an amount in excess of Rs.65 Crore. It has also pointed out financial stringency emerging from abolition of octroi and less collection of LBT resulting in short fall of revenue collection. We have already noted above that petitioners have not come up with any case of malafides or abuse of its power by employer. We, therefore, need not delve into this aspect of the matter. There is nothing before this court to doubt the bonafides of Corporation in selecting 1.12.2010 as the date for extending benefits of sixth wage revision to its employees. 15. Accordingly, we find that respondent Corporation has to only look into the cases of its employees who have retired after 1.1.2006 but prior to 1.12.2010 and if their pension has not been revised, as observed by this court supra in this judgment, it must take appropriate steps to revise their pension proportionately. Hence, with this direction to Corporation, and as we do not find any substance in other contentions, petitions are disposed of. No costs. Rule discharged.