K. R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) ). By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order at Annexure B dated 2-8-78 passed by respondent No. 1 Secretary Gujarat State Social Welfare Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the State Board) freezing the yearly increment of the petitioner and the order dated 17-9-80 Annexure H informing the petitioner that respondent No 4 Central Social Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as the Central Board) was not agreeable to accede to the request of the petitioner to upgrade the post of Stenographer The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents he permanently restrained from reverting him from the post of Stenographer Grade-I to the post of Stenographer Grade-II ( 2 ) ). While issuing notice on the petition this Court on 9-3-1981 by way of had interim relief directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner D A. and usual allowances from February 1981 onwards and restrained the respondents from reverting the petitioner. ( 3 ) ). It appears that respondent No 1-State Board came into existence in the se year 1960 with the Government resolution No SWB-1560-F dated 1st May 1960 It further appears that the State Board is affiliated with the Central Board which was set up on 12th August 1953 by the Government of India Resolution giving predominant representation to non-officials (mostly women) The Central Board is a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act 1956 The Central Board was set up with the objects inter alia promoting the setting up of Social Welfare Organisations in existence and for promoting additional organisations wherever necessary For achieving this object Statewise Social Advisory Boards have been created and they are affiliated with the Central Board It appears that the Central Board has sanctioned the following administrative set-up for the office of the State Board by its letter No. CEB/4/sb/dgt/60-8 1 dated 1st June 1960: Staff for The Gujarat State Board No. Designation Pay scale of of the post -- 1 2 3 -- 1 Office Secretary Rs. 350-25-500 plus DA 70 1 PA to Chairman Rs. 180-10-310-15-400 plus DA 55 1 Steno-typist Rs. 75-5140-8-220 plus SP 30 1 Accountant plus DA 45 Rs. 275-15-350 1 Office Assistant plus DA 60 Rs. 210-15-300 2 Senior Clerk plus DA 60 Rs. 120-10-250 4 Lower Div. 350-25-500 plus DA 70 1 PA to Chairman Rs. 180-10-310-15-400 plus DA 55 1 Steno-typist Rs. 75-5140-8-220 plus SP 30 1 Accountant plus DA 45 Rs. 275-15-350 1 Office Assistant plus DA 60 Rs. 210-15-300 2 Senior Clerk plus DA 60 Rs. 120-10-250 4 Lower Div. Clerks plus DA 50 Rs. 75-5-140-8-220 2 Peons plus DA 45 Rs. 351/2-1/2-40 1 Driver plus 8 HR plus DA 40 Rs. 60-5-75 plus HR 5 DA 45 ( 4 ) ). It is stated in the letter dated 1st June 1960 of the Central Board that the scales of pay of the members of the staff as indicated above have been sanctioned subject to the condition that these scales conform to those laid down by the State Government for similar posts. It is not in dispute that the State Board originally constituted in the year 1960 composed of 6 non-official members including the Chairman and two officers of the State Government. The State Government reconstituted the said Board by its resolution dated 20th July 1960 by appointing 9 non-official members including the Chairman and two officers of the State Government. Likewise the term of the Board was extended from time to time. However the State Government by its resolution dated 23-8- 78 extended the term of the Board till further orders. It is also not in dispute that when the term of the Board was extended by the last resolution till further orders there were 22 non-official members one non-official Chairman and four officers of the State Government. ( 5 ) ). The petitioner was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk by the Chairman of the State Board on 2nd June 1960 in the pay scale of Rs. 75 He was thereafter promoted as Steno-typist by an order dated 25th October 1960 in the same pay scale plus a special pay of Rs. 30 and D. A. of Rs. 45. By an office order dated 29th December 1960 the petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs. 100 plus usual allowances as per the State Government Rules in accordance with the pay scales applicable to Government employees. It appears that the petitioners scale was later on revised in the grade of Rs. 140-270 with effect from 1st February 1962 by an order dated 11th June 1962. ( 6 ) ). 100 plus usual allowances as per the State Government Rules in accordance with the pay scales applicable to Government employees. It appears that the petitioners scale was later on revised in the grade of Rs. 140-270 with effect from 1st February 1962 by an order dated 11th June 1962. ( 6 ) ). Considering the application of the petitioner dated 12th May 1964 for revision of his scale to that of Senior Stenographer the State Board in its meeting held on 23rd July 1964 decided to revise the petitioners scale and accordingly he was informed on 30th July 1984 that his pay scale was revised to Rs. 180-10-300 with effect from 1st August 1984. It appears that pursuant to the revision of the pay scales of the Government employees by Revision of Pay Rules 1961 Revision of Pay Rules 1967 (Sarela Pay Commission recommendations) and Revision of Pay Rules 1975 (Desai Pay Commission recommendations) the State Board also revised the pay scales and accordingly the petitioners salary was also revised pursuant to the revision of the pay scales of the Government employees on the basis of the Desai Pay Commission recommendations. ( 7 ) ). It appaus (sic.) that the Inspect Party of the Central Board visited the office of the State Board and raised objection against the fixation of the salary of the petitioner as Stenographer Grade I. By its letter dated 8th March 1978 the Central Board pointed out that the State Board is eligible to have amongst others a post of Junior Stenographer in the lowest grade of the State Government and therefore it was not possible to sanction upgradation of the post of Steno-Typist of the State Board to any higher scale. Accordingly the Central Board by its letter dated 13 November 1978 informed the State Board that the pay scale of Rs. 475-800 was approved for the post of Stenographer Grade II (the petitioner ). The contents of the said letter read as under: as the scale of pay of the Stenographer will be Rs. 475-800 the present holder of the post Shri P. K. Khalsa may be also brought in the scale of pay and since Shri Khalsa is already drawing pay of Rs. 800. 00 p. m. he may be allowed to draw at the rate of Rs. 800. 00 (maximum of the scale) plus Rs. 10. 475-800 the present holder of the post Shri P. K. Khalsa may be also brought in the scale of pay and since Shri Khalsa is already drawing pay of Rs. 800. 00 p. m. he may be allowed to draw at the rate of Rs. 800. 00 (maximum of the scale) plus Rs. 10. 00 as personal pay so that there is no loss of pay in his present emoluments. In view of the aforesaid clarification of the Central Board made in November 1978 and adoption of the new scales of pay pending the concurrence of the State Government the State Board decided to freez the salary or eight employees including the petitioner by its letter dated 2nd August 1978 ( 8 ) ). The petitioner has challenged the said decision freezing his salary on various grounds inter alia by contending that he had been drawing salary with increments for a long period of 17 years i. e. from 1964 till 1978 and therefore it was not open for the respondents to contend that the post of Stenographer held by the petitioner could not be upgraded. This is particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade I from the post of Stenographer Grade II which was approved in the meeting of the State Board. It was further contended that for stopping the increments without any reason amounts to punishment and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for showing cause as to why his salary should not be freezed and therefore the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. At the time of hearing of the petition the impugned decision is also challenged by contending that on the principle of quantum merut by contending that the petitioner who worked on the post was entitled to the wages attached to the post of Stenographer Grade I. It was further so pointed out that even on the principle of equitable estoppel the petitioner is entitled to get the salary of Stenographer Grade I. To substantial this submission Mr. Master learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon certain decisions or this Court as well as of other High Courts. Master learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon certain decisions or this Court as well as of other High Courts. On behalf of the State Board a preliminary contention has been raised regarding the maintainability of the present petition by contending that the State Board is not an authority and/or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of this preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents I heard the learned Advocate for the parties at length and will deal with the said contention first. ( 9 ) ). Mr. H. K. Gohil Secretary Gujarat State Social Welfare Advisory Board has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 wherein it is inter alia contended that the State Board is affiliated with the Central Social Welfare Board New Delhi which was set up on 12th August 1953 by the Government or India resolution giving predominant representation to non-officials (mostly women ). The said Central Board is a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 1st April 1969 The Central Board was set up with the objects inter alia of promoting the setting up of Social Welfare Organisations in existence and for promoting additional organisations wherever necessary. To achieve this objective Statewise Social Advisory Boards have been created which are affiliated with the Central Board. The State Board is one of such Boards. As per the Government Resolution dated 12th August 1976 the Board consists of the Chairman nominated by the State Government 11 lady members who are non-official nominees of the Central Board 11 lady members who are nonofficial nominees of the State Government and 4 officers of the State Government. It is further slated that although half the nominees are appointed by the State Government none of the resolutions provides for any control by the State Government over the State so Board in matters of policy and day-to-day management. It is further slated that although half the nominees are appointed by the State Government none of the resolutions provides for any control by the State Government over the State so Board in matters of policy and day-to-day management. It is admitted by the deponent of the affidavit that the State Board receives grant from the Central Board and the State Government on the pattern of the ratio agreed upon between the Central Board and the State Government as under : - (i) 21 Family and 100% 100% Child Welfare Projects (ii) 8 Border Office 1/3rs of the total Establishment expenditure i. e. 50 of the grant (iii) State Board released by the Office Est. Central Board 50 of the total expenditure on release of 50% by Central Board The Central Board releases grant to the State Board for the following programmes: (i) General Grant in aid 100% (ii) Condensed course of 100% education and vocational condensed courses (iii) Socio-economic 100% programme (iv) Holiday Homes 100% (v) Mahila Mandals 75% (vi) Nutrition programmes 100% (vii) Urban Projects 80% Board Area Projects 2/3rd of the total approved budget (ix) Creches 30% (x) State Board 50% of the total Office Est. approved budget It is further stated by the deponent that in spite of the fact the State Government releases the grant for a certain specific purposes the State Government does not issue any directions nor is there any power reserved in the State in any of the Resolutions to issue any such directions. Thus there is no direct control over the functioning of the State Board. The deponent has also averred that the State Board does not perform any Government functions; it merely tries to promote and assist voluntary social welfare organisations. The promotion of social welfare organisations is not a monopoly enjoyed by the State Board or even by the Central Board. ( 10 ) ). The petitioner in the petition has given certain details regarding the functions of the State Board described in the draft Rules governing the composition of the functions of the State Board which are as under: (1) To act as a media for exchange of information between the field and the Centre and vice-versa. (2) To invite receive examine and recommend to the Central Board applications for grant in aid from voluntary welfare organisations and institutions under the different programmes. (2) To invite receive examine and recommend to the Central Board applications for grant in aid from voluntary welfare organisations and institutions under the different programmes. (3) To supervise and report on the working of the institutions/projects to the Central Board. (4) To advise and assist the Central Board in sponsoring new welfare programmes and activities wherever they are needed within the State. (5) To co-ordinate welfare development activities undertaken by various departments of the State Government with a view to avoiding duplication. (6) To undertake such other activities as may be conducive to the fulfilment of the objectives. (7) To promote growth of voluntary social welfare agency with special reference to the development of the welfare services in the areas uncovered. (8) To assist the Central Board in the provision on field counselling services for aided agency. (9) To administer the programmes of social welfare in rural areas either sponsored by the Central Board or jointly initiated with the co-operation of the State Board and Stale Government. (10) To stimulate effective co-ordination among voluntary welfare agency and the Stale and local level. (11) To assist the Central Board and the State Government in either development of the social welfare services. Therefore it is the case of the petitioner that looking to the functions objects activities and programmes of the State Board and its connection with the Government of India as well as Stale Government the State Board is an agency or instrumentality of the Government and is therefore a a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) ). In view of the aforesaid pleadings it is required to be considered whether respondent No. 1 Board satisfies the necessary criteria of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT AIR 1992 SC 76 while considering the question whether National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court considered all the leading judgments on the point and summarised the principle enunciated in the said judgments as under: 2 There are only general principles but not exhaustive test to determine whether a body is an instrumentally or agency of the Government. Even in general principles there is no cut and dried formula which would provide correct division of bodies into those which are instrumentalities or agencies of the Government and those which are not. The powers functions finances and control of the Government are some of the indicating factors to answer the question whether a body is Stale or not Each case should be handled with care and caution. Where the financial assistance from the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the institution or the share capital of the corporation is completely held by the government it would afford some of the body being impregnated will governmental character. It may be a relevant factor if the institution or the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication. If the functions of the institution are of public importance and related to governmental functions it would also be a relevant factor These are merely indicative in any case (See (i) Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975) 1 SCC 421 1975 SC 1331); (ii) R. D. Shetty International Airport Authority (1979)1 SCC 489 1979 SC 1628): Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardhi (1981)1 SCC 722 : ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) and (iv) Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1981)1 SCC 449 : ( AIR 1981 SC 212 ). ( 12 ) ). In paragraph 3 of the judgment the Supreme Court has laid down the law on the question of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as under: 3 Art. 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression State. A wide enlargement of the meeting must be tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sigh of that in the modern concept of Welfare State independent institution corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. The State control does not render such bodies as State under Article 12. The State control however vast and pervasive is not determinative. The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. It must not be lost sigh of that in the modern concept of Welfare State independent institution corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. The State control does not render such bodies as State under Article 12. The State control however vast and pervasive is not determinative. The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is State. If the Government operates behind a corporate veil carrying out governmental activity and governmental functions of vital public importance there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution (See: (i) P. K. Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141 : ( AIR 1984 SC 541 (ii) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojonath Gangoli (1986) 3 SCC 156 ; (AIR 1986 SC 157) and (iii) Tekraj Vasandhi alias K. L. Basandhi v. Union of India (1988) 2 SCR 260 : ( AIR 1988 SC 469 ). ( 13 ) ). The aforesaid observations make it abundantly clear that Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression State. White considering the said question one should not lose sight of the fact that in the modern concept of Welfare State independent institution corporation and agency are generally subject to State control which however vast and pervasive is not determinative. Similarly financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. However the combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policy of the body and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory function of the State may largely point out that the body is State. In other words the cumulative effect of the State aid coupled with the unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State will construe such body as State. In other words the cumulative effect of the State aid coupled with the unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State will construe such body as State. The Supreme Court after considering the earlier decisions has laid down the law on the subject of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Uptil now the Court was considering some of the ingredients viz. whether financial assistance from the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the institution or the share capital of the corporation is completely held by the Government which may afford some indication of the body being impregnated with the governmental character. Whether the institution or the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected; the existence of deep and pervasive State control and if the function of the institution are of public importance and related to governmental functions were the relevant factors affording indication of the body being of governmental character. However in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Khannas case (supra) the question is required to be considered in light of the ratio laid down by it in the said judgment. ( 14 ) ). As stated above there is no dispute that the State Board receives grant from the Central Board and the State Government. It is clearly stated in the affidavit-in-reply that merely because the State Government and the Central Government release grant for particular purposes the said authorities do not issue any directions nor is there any power reserved in the State in any of the resolutions to issue directions meaning thereby there is no direct or indirect control over the functions of the State Board. In Chander Mohans case before the Supreme Court the Government releases the grant to the NCERT which is carrying on the activities of educational research and training comprising undertaking several kinds of programmes and activities connected with the co ordination of research extension series and dissemination of improved educational techniques collaboration in the educational programmes and preparation and publication of books The Supreme Court has held that these activities carried on by the NCERT were not wholly related to governmental functions and its Executive Committee could enter into arrangements with Government public or private organisations or individuals in furtherance of the objectives of the implementation of programmes and is free to apply its income and property towards the promotion of its objectives and implementation of its programmes and Government control is confined only to the proper utilisation of the grant given by it which is one of the sources of its funds the organisation is not State within the meaning of Article 12 but is largely an autonomous body In the present case the State Government releases grant to the State Board towards family and Child Welfare Projects. Border office ) establishment and State Board office establishment Similarly the Central Board releases grant for carrying out the programmes of general grant-in-aid; Condensed course of education and vocational condensed course; socio economic programme; holiday homes; Mahila Mandals; Nutrition programmes; Urban projects; Border areas projects; Creches and State Boards office establishment. The activities carried out by respondent No. 1 to act as a media for exchange of information; to invite receive examine and recommend to the Central Board applications for grant aid: to supervise and report on the woking of the institutions/projects; to advise and assist the Central Board in sponsoring nest welfare programmes and activities; to co-ordinate welfare development activities; to undertake such other activities as may be conducive to the objectives; to promote growth of voluntary social welfare agency; to assist he Central Board; to administer the programmes of social welfare in rural areas either sponsored by the Central Board or jointly initiated with the co operation of the State Board and State Government; to stimulate effective coordination among voluntary welfare agency and the State and local level and to assist the Central Board and the State Government in other development of the social welfare services in my opinion are akin to those carried out by the NCERT. Therefore even if respondent No. 1 receives grant from the State Government and the Central Board for the (sic.) aforesaid activities without there being any effective control in my opinion the same cannot construe respondent No. 1 Board as an instrumentality within the meaning of State. The said grant is confined only to the proper utilisation of the grant given by the State Government and/or the Central Board. ( 15 ) ). Similarly it appears the State Board is not performing any governmental functions as it merely tries to promote and assist voluntary social welfare a organisations. In any case promotion of social welfare organisations is not a monopoly enjoyed by the State Board or even the Central Board. It is not even the contention of the petitioner that the a activities carried out by respondent No. 1 are monopoly enjoyed by it with the financial assistance of the State Government and the Central Board. therefore this ingredient is also not satisfied. As held by the Supreme Court in Chander Mohans case in the modern concept of Welfare State independent institution corporation and agency are generally subject to State control; however the State control does not render such bodies as State under Article 12. ( 16 ) ). As stated above the State Board was got up with the object of promoting the setting up of social welfare organisations in existence and for promoting additional organisations whenever necessary and affiliated with the Central Board and particularly in view of the fact that the Constitution of the Board suggests that even if some members are nominees of the State Government and the Central Board the State Government has no control over their State Board in the policy matters and day-to-day management. Thus except giving grant for certain purposes the State Government does not issue any directions nor is there any power reserved in the State in any resolution to issue any such directions and therefore there is no direct or indirect control over the functions of the State Board. In my opinion therefore respondent No. 1 being an autonomous body getting grant from the State Government and the Central Board for certain specified purposes it has no other nexus with the so government. In my opinion therefore respondent No. 1 being an autonomous body getting grant from the State Government and the Central Board for certain specified purposes it has no other nexus with the so government. It is therefore not possible to hold that the Gujarat State Social Welfare Advisory Board-respondent No. 1 is either an agency or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and since it is not a State the petition is not maintainable against it. 17 In Civil Writ Petition No. 3069 of 1971 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the facts were that the petitioner was appointed Accountant with State Social Welfare Advisory Board Patiala. After the merger of two States of Punjab and Pepsu the petitioner became an employee of the Punjab State Social Welfare Advisory Board. On 3 his services were terminated by the Chairman of the Punjab Board and he was informer that he would be paid one months salary in lieu of notice after he handed over complete charge and cleared all the dues. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal to the Secretary to Government Punjab Social Welfare Department and a representation to Governor of Punjab. He also filed a representation to Punjab Board and another representation to the Central Social Welfare Board. The Secretary to Government and the Governor of Punjab did not pass any order but on 27 1970 the Central is Board informed the Punjab Board that the termination of the petitioners services was not regular and as proper procedure has not been followed he should be reinstated and then compulsorily retired to from service on the ground of his unsatisfactory record of service. The Punjab Board did not agree to this mode being adopted. The petitioner then filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 3-4-70 passed by the Chairman of the Punjab Board terminating his services. In this facts situation the question that arose for consideration before the Punjab and 811 Haryana High Court was whether the Punjab Board constituted a department of the Punjab Government or the Union Government and whether the petitioner was a Government servant holding a civil post under the State of Punjab or the Union of India. In this facts situation the question that arose for consideration before the Punjab and 811 Haryana High Court was whether the Punjab Board constituted a department of the Punjab Government or the Union Government and whether the petitioner was a Government servant holding a civil post under the State of Punjab or the Union of India. In that case the Punjab Board was constituted by the Punjab Government and 50 per cent of its members were nominated by the Punjab of Government white the remaining 50 per cent were nominated by the Central Board. Similarly the expenditure of the establishment of the Punjab Board was met 50 per cent by the Punjab Government and 50 per cent by the Central Government. The Central Board has been incorporated as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act 1956 since April 1 1969 In that case Article 9 of the Articles of Association provided that: in each of the participating State Union Territories there will be a State Social Welfare Advisory Board. The State Board will perform such functions as are entrusted to it by the Central Social Welfare Board. Half the members of the State Social Welfare Advisory Board to excluding the Chairman shall be nominated by the concerned State Government/union Territory Administration and the other half by the Central Social Welfare Board. The Chairman of the Board preferably be a woman social worker selected by the State Government in consultation with the Chairman of the Central Social Welfare Board. ( 17 ) ). IN that case the Punjab and Haryana High Court held the Punjab Board may not be a subsidiary of the Board but it is certainly affiliated to the Central Board and functions under its direction. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that any directions are issued by the Punjab Government for the functioning of the Punjab Board. The Punjab Board therefore is not a part of the Social. Welfare Department of the Punjab Government but is an independent body to which the Punjab Government contributes some money on account of its expenses and has the right to nominate half of its members. The real control on the Punjab Board is of the Central Board which is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 No statutory rules have been framed for the employees of the Punjab Board. The real control on the Punjab Board is of the Central Board which is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 No statutory rules have been framed for the employees of the Punjab Board. In view of the above circumstances it was held that it was not possible to hold that the Punjab Board was a department of the Punjab Government or that the petitioner in that case held a civil post under the Punjab State Government and the provisions of Article 312 (2) of the Constitution were therefore not applicable. ( 18 ) ). Mr. Master however has relied on certain other decisions of the Supreme Court. In Vidya Dhar Pande v. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti AIR 1989 SC 341 the appellant challenged the order of termination of his services. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ petition holding that the Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education M. P. under Section 28 (2) (d) of the M. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam 1965 have no statutory force and as such their termination of the services was in violation of Regulations Nos. 71 and 79 did not entitle the appellant to a declaration that the termination was illegal and for a direction for his re-instatement in service. appears that the High Court did not reject to the petition on the ground that it was not maintainable as it was filed against a private trust. However the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment has observed that the Higher Secondary School though run by a private trust receives 100% grant from the Government is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court for arriving at the said conclusion relied on the earlier judgment in Manmohan Singh Jaitle v. Commissioner U. T of Chandigarh AIR 1985 SC 364 . The said judgment was rendered relying on the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi AIR 1981 SC v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (sic.) AIR 1981 SC 487 . The said judgment was rendered relying on the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi AIR 1981 SC v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (sic.) AIR 1981 SC 487 . As stated above the Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Khannas case (supra) has after considering all the earlier decisions including the decision in Ajay Hasias case clarified the position regarding the question of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and since the said judgment is latest one it is certainly binding to this Court and therefore even if it is held in the earlier judgments that a writ against a private trust is maintainable I would rather like to follow the latest judgment and hence the reliance placed by Mr. Master on the decision in Vidya Dhar Pandes case does not render any assistance to the petitioner. ( 19 ) ). Mr. Master then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru SMVSJMS Trust v. V. R. Rudani AIR 1989 SC 1607 . Reading the said judgment it appears that the Supreme Court was mainly concerned with the question of issuance of a writ of mandamus and it is held that issuance of a writ of mandamus is not confined to statutory authority and instrumentality of the State and that it can be issued to any other person or authority performing public duty. Duty need not be imposed by the State. There is no dispute with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this case. However in this petition this Court is concerned wish the applicability of Article 12 of the Constitution to respondent No. 1-State Board. Even assuming that the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Anadi Muktas case is applicable to the facts of the present case the Supreme Court in that case was required to hold that a writ of mandamus can be issued to public trust as the said trust was managing the affiliated college to which the public money is paid as Government aid and the public money paid as Government aid plays a major role in the control maintenance and working of educational institution. It is held therein that the aided institutions like Government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students and they are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. Their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities. Employment in such institutions therefore is not devoid of any public character. So are the service conditions of the adademic staff. When the University takes a decision regarding their pay scales it will be binding on the management. The service conditions of the academic staff are therefore not purely of a private character. It has super added protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. In view of this when there is existence of this relationship mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party. Thus the Supreme Court considered the aid received by the public trust from the Government and the control of the University. As stated above even if an institutes gets grant that is not the sole relevant factor for construing the institute to be an instrumentality of the State. As observed by me earlier besides getting grant the cumulative effect of other factors is also required to be considered. ( 20 ) ). In view of the above it is held that respondent No. 1-State Board is neither an instrumentality nor an agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore the same is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction and therefore the petition itself is not maintainable. . ( 21 ) ). In view of this finding it is not necessary for me to examine the case of the petitioner on merits and the same is left open to the petitioner by way of availing the remedy that may be available to him for adjudication thereof before the appropriate forum. ( 22 ) ). In the result the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ( 23 ) ). Before parting I would like to state that as the case of the petitioner is not decided on merits in view of the binding decision of the Supreme Court if the petitioner so desires he may make a representation before the appropriate authority or move the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance. ( 23 ) ). Before parting I would like to state that as the case of the petitioner is not decided on merits in view of the binding decision of the Supreme Court if the petitioner so desires he may make a representation before the appropriate authority or move the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance. If such a representation is made the authority will consider the same and give due weightage to the fact that the petitioner worked for all this period of 17 years and that he has voluntarily retired during the pendency of this position. ( 24 ) ). Mr. Master at this stage makes an oral application for continuing the ad interim relief granted in this petition for a period of six weeks. The oral application is granted and the ad interim relief granted earlier shall continue for a period of six weeks. .