Y. B. BHATT J.-, J. ( 1 ) THE pertinent facts in brief leading to the present petition are as under: ( 2 ) THE petitioner was serving in the Primary School run by the first respondent Trust. It appears that when he had joined as a teacher in the primary section he was only a B. A. but while he was in service he was permitted to further acquire the degree of B. Ed. by the first respondent Trust. The relevant period of service while the petitioner held the qualification of only B. A. was 2nd July 1970 to 30th April 1971 and 22nd February 1972 to 30th April 1972 It appears that thereafter having acquired the additional qualification of B. Ed. the first respondent Trust proposed to appoint him as a Headmaster/teacher of the primary school in the pay-scale of 225-10-275 With effect from 1st May 1972 Accordingly the first respondent issued a letter of appointment dated 29th April 1972 appointing the petitioner as Headmaster in this scale with effect from 1st May 1972 ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile the Trust applied to the second respondent by application dated 30th May 1972 for making the appointment of the petitioner in this scale. The said application is at Annexure-B to the petition wherein the first respondent pointed out that the petitioner who held the degree of B. A. B. Ed. has been appointed with effect from 1st May 1972 in the scale of 225 The said application pointed out that the petitioner had been employed by the first respondent as a primary teacher during the earlier period referred to hereinabove that the first respondent was satisfied with his services that the petitioner had given a written undertaking to serve for three years etc. While asking for approval for the appointment of the petitioner in the specific scale of 225-10-275 the first respondent specifically (undertook in the said application at Annexure-B) that the difference in the salary to be paid to the petitioner between the regular scale and the higher scale on account of his additional qualification of B. A. B. Ed. would be paid and borne by the first respondent trust. would be paid and borne by the first respondent trust. ( 4 ) IN the context of this application by the first respondent the second respondent replied by letter dated 30th August 1972 and informed the first respondent that approval has been granted in the context of the application of the Trust to appoint the teacher having a qualification of B. A. B. Ed in the scale applicable to the trained primary teacher i. e. in the scale of pay applicable to a P. T. C. qualified teacher. Thus the sanction granted was only for making the appointment and not for the higher scale It appears that Primary Teachers are paid in the lower scale as the lower qualification of PTC is required in their case and the Secondary Teachers are paid in the higher scale as they require a higher qualification of B A B. Ed. It appears that thereafter for many years the first respondent continued to pay the petitioner salary and allowances in the scale of 225-10-275 ( 5 ) THEREAFTER on the basis of the Desai Pay Commission Report which was adopted by the first respondent Trust the petitioner was to be paid the salary as revised by the said report with effect from 1st August 1976 The necessary resolution was passed by the firs respondent Trust on 1st August 1976 in this regard This situation continued right upto he year 1982. ( 6 ) IN the year 1982 the second respondent addressed a letter to the first respondent dated 8 April 1982 pointing out that the first respondent was making payment of salary to the petitioner not in the PTC scale but in the scale applicable to B. Ed. teacher in secondary schools which appears to be contrary to law and that therefore the firs respondent was called upon to explain why the salary in the higher scale was being paid The said letter at Annexure-F also pointed out that this discrepancy had been pointed out to the first respondent during the annual inspections from lime to time and the attention of the first respondent had been drawn earlier by way of audit objection as well Il was pointed out that the second respondent had not approved payment of salary in the scale applicable to B. Ed. teachers to any teacher employed in a primary school. teachers to any teacher employed in a primary school. Il was also pointed out that such higher payment would create difficulties as regards sanction of grant etc. ( 7 ) IT must be noted at this stage that there cannot be any dispute that the letter at Annexure-F issued by second respondent to the first respondent was merely a cautionary letter calling for an explanation and issuing a warning as regards complications which may arise as regards grant-in-aid. This cannot in any manner be considered as a mandate or a direction although the petitioner and the first respondent appear to have treated this its a mandate or an order. ( 8 ) IT appears that thereafter the second respondent issued another letter dated 31st May 1982 at Annexure-G to the petition. In this letter as well the first respondent told that the petitioner was being paid salary in the scale applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers instead of being paid in the scale applicable to PTC teachers This letter also pointed out that although a number of reminders had been issued the same have not been complied with and therefore it was directed that the first respondent should immediately (1) make an endorsement in the service book of the petitioner with effect from the data of his entry applying the scale applicable to PTC trained teachers (2) fix the pay in the said scale accordingly (3) make necessary entries in the service book accordingly and (4) present the service book in the office of the second respondent after the necessary entries have been made therein ( 9 ) IT appears that although these directions were issued by the second respondent by letter dated 31st May 1982 the first respondent became aware earlier that such directions were about to be issued. The first respondent therefore issued a letter to the petitioner dated 20th May 1982 informing him that the second respondent had objected to the payment of salary in the grade applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers and that therefore the petitioner would be paid salary in the scale applicable to PTC teachers with effect from 1st April 1982 It appears that with effect from the said date viz. 1 April 1982 the first respondent then began to pay the salary of the petitioner in the lower scale. teachers and that therefore the petitioner would be paid salary in the scale applicable to PTC teachers with effect from 1st April 1982 It appears that with effect from the said date viz. 1 April 1982 the first respondent then began to pay the salary of the petitioner in the lower scale. This prompted the petitioner to file the present petition challenging the decision of the first respondent at Annexure-E to the petition and also the so-called orders and/or directions issued by the second respondent at Annexures-F and G to the petition. ( 10 ) AT this stage it may be noted that the first respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply whereas the second respondent has not filed any reply to the petition. ( 11 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed by the first respondent the stand taken is merely technical to the effect that since the petitioner is serving in a primary school he is entitled to a salary in the scale applicable to PTC trained teachers and not in the scale applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers who may be serving in the secondary school. The stand taken herein by the first respondent is that by virtue of the relevant GRs a primary teacher cannot be given salary in the scale applicable to the B. Ed. teachers which would be applicable only to teachers of a secondary school. Apart from this contention the rest of the affidavit only deals with the financial difficulties of the first respondent Trust and its inability to pay the salary in the higher scale. ( 12 ) IT is pertinent to note that in the very same reply in para 3 thereof the first respondent has specifically admitted that it had agreed to pay to the petitioner salary in the scale applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers as no teachers were available at that time. Now that many teachers are available and since the Trust has run into financial difficulties the Trust cannot pay salary in the higher pay-scale. In support of this submission the first respondent has also taken shelter behind the letters of the second respondent and asserted that the government has also objected to payment of the salary in the higher scale. Now that many teachers are available and since the Trust has run into financial difficulties the Trust cannot pay salary in the higher pay-scale. In support of this submission the first respondent has also taken shelter behind the letters of the second respondent and asserted that the government has also objected to payment of the salary in the higher scale. ( 13 ) IT is also pertinent to note that the stand taken by the first respondent in its affidavit-in-reply only takes shelter behind the letters of the second respondent which letters are merely a warning to the first respondent as regards non-sanction of the grant in respect of the difference in salary. Taking shelter behind this cautionary note the first respondent although it paid the petitioner salary in the higher scale from 1st May 1976 upto 31st March 1982 decided to effect a cut in the salary with effect from 1st April 1982 ( 14 ) FROM this simple state of circumstances it becomes obvious that the stand taken by the first respondent is that the qualification of the petitioner is not relevant and since he is serving in a primary school he cannot be paid salary in any scale other than the one prescribed by the government. Since the government has fixed the scale for primary teachers at a lower level the petitioner cannot be paid salary in the higher scale. ( 15 ) IT is obvious that this stand is hyper-technical and has been taken merely with a view to wriggle out of its obligation to pay salary in the scale fixed by the first respondent at the lime of appointment of the petitioner. There cannot be any dispute that the letter of appointment issued by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner at Annexure-A to the petition fixed his salary in the scale of 225 which was the scale applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers in secondary schools at the relevant point of time. As already discussed hereinabove this scale was revised by the Desai Pay Commission and adopted by the first respondent by an appropriate resolution. Even after this revision the first respondent continued to pay salary to the petitioner in the revised scale applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers. teachers in secondary schools at the relevant point of time. As already discussed hereinabove this scale was revised by the Desai Pay Commission and adopted by the first respondent by an appropriate resolution. Even after this revision the first respondent continued to pay salary to the petitioner in the revised scale applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers. ( 16 ) IT must be noted that the objection raised by the Government was relevant and affected the first respondent only for the purpose of computation of the amount of grant which could be sanctioned in respect of the salary of the teachers of the first respondent. The application by the first respondent at Annexure-B to the petition specifically states that the difference of salary which would arise on account of payment to be made in the higher scale applicable to B. A. B. Ed. teachers would be borne and paid by the first respondent. In this context it must also be noted that while sanctioning the appointment the second respondent vide Annexure-C issued a sanction with a specific condition that the appointment should be in the pay-scale applicable to PTC teachers even though the appointee may be B. A. B. Ed. The first respondent though being aware of this specific condition attached to the order of sanction continued to pay the petitioner in the higher pay scale. There can be no other interpretation of this action of the first respondent except that the first respondent was willing to bear the difference although such difference may not accrue for the purpose of grant payable to the first respondent in respect of the salary of its teachers. ( 17 ) IT is also pertinent to note that when the second respondent issued letters at Annexures-F and G addressed to the first respondent they were only in the context of the grant payable to the first respondent in respect of the teachers salaries. ( 18 ) IT also appears from the record and particularly from the salary statements etc. contained in the computation of the permissible grant (Annexures-I and J to the petition) that second respondent had only approved the salary paid to the petitioner (for the purposes of the grant) in the scale applicable to PTC teachers and not in the higher scale. The difference between the two was disallowed for the purposes of the grant. contained in the computation of the permissible grant (Annexures-I and J to the petition) that second respondent had only approved the salary paid to the petitioner (for the purposes of the grant) in the scale applicable to PTC teachers and not in the higher scale. The difference between the two was disallowed for the purposes of the grant. This was in respect of the year 1972-73 and thereafter. ( 19 ) FROM these facts its appears that although the first respondent has paid the salary to the petitioner in the higher scale which has not been approved for the purposes of the grant the difference between the two has been disallowed for the purposes of the grant and the same has therefore been borne by the first respondent at least upto 31st March 1982 It was only with effect from 1st April 1982 (vide Annexure-E) that the firs respondent reduced the salary of the petitioner to conform to the PTC scale. ( 20 ) IT is therefore obvious that the first respondent perhaps on account of its financial difficulty has attempted to wriggle out of its obligation to meet the difference of salary arising out of the difference in the two scales at least with effect from 1. 4. 1982. It is also apparent that the second respondent has not sanctioned or paid any grant to the first respondent in respect of the difference between the two scales. Thus the second respondent has in fact not made any excess payment and therefore there does not appear to be any question of the second respondent making any recovery from the first respondent. . ( 21 ) IN view of the specific undertaking of the first respondent to meet the difference of salary on account of the difference in the two scales (vide Annexure-B) the first respondent cannot now wriggle out of its obligation to meet the difference merely because it may be in financial difficulty. This financial difficulty is moreover merely an averment or a plea and has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of either the second respondent or this court. In any case even if it were in genuine financial difficulty this obligation cannot be disowned by the first respondent. This financial difficulty is moreover merely an averment or a plea and has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of either the second respondent or this court. In any case even if it were in genuine financial difficulty this obligation cannot be disowned by the first respondent. ( 22 ) IT is also pertinent to note that the second respondent so long as it has not made any excess or untoward payment to the first respondent in respect or the difference by sanctioning or making payment of a higher grant has no reason to call upon the firs respondent to either reduce the salary of the petitioner or to retrospectively fix the salary of the petitioner in the lower scale from the date of his appointment. Such action on the part of the second respondent would be clearly illegal and dehors any rule or regulation in this regard. ( 23 ) IN the premises aforesaid the action taken by the first respondent in reducing the salary of the petitioner with effect from 1. 4. 1982 vide Annexure-E so as to conform to the PTC grade is clearly illegal. It must be held that the first respondent is under an obligation to continue to pay the salary of the petitioner in the higher scale (vide Annexure-D) as revised from time to time. It may be noted here that although the petitioner has challenged the so-called order of second respondent at Annexure-F the same is not a statutory order and/or direction but is merely a cautionary letter which does not specifically require the first respondent to take any action as regards deduction of salary. The same therefore does not require any interference. However the same cannot be said in respect of the order passed by the second respondent at Annexure-G. The second respondent had no justification in law or in fact to issue mandatory directions as contemplated by Annexure-G. As the facts of the case indicate the second respondent had neither sanctioned nor paid the difference of salary by way of approving the grant and therefore there was no financial loss so far as the second respondent is concerned. So far as the first respondent continued to honour this undertaking to pay to the petitioner salary in the higher scale and continued to bear the difference of salary on account of the difference in the scales the second respondent had no justification in law to object to the same. Obviously therefore directions issued by the second respondent at Annexure-G to the petition are illegal and the same are quashed and set aside. ( 24 ) ACCORDINGLY the present petition is allowed. Annexures-E and G are quashed and set aside and it is held and directed that the petitioner is entitled to and shall be paid the salary in consonance with the resolution at Annexure-D and according to that scale as may be revised from lime to time. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .