JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---Heard Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. R.N. Dhorde Patil, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. None appears for respondent No. 4. 2. Rule was granted by this Court on 6-5-1998 and Rule on interim relief was made returnable on 15-6-1998. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time. With the consent of the parties, it is decided that the matter should be heard finally and, therefore, it is now heard finally. 3. The petitioners herein are lecturers appointed by respondent No. 5 in respondent No. 6 college. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed in the year 1987 whereas the petitioner No. 3 was appointed in the year 1992. The petitioners services were approved by the Marathwada University by their orders dt. 27th February, 1989, and 29th March, 1993. It appears that they have completed their probation period and they are confirmed lecturers. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners are the lecturers in Commerce Faculty of the respondent No. 6. The petitioners state that since April, 1992, hundred per cent salary grant was paid by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, however, suddenly since January, 1997, their salary grant has been stopped by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and, therefore, they have approached this Honourable High Court, making grievance against the respondents. 4. The respondent No. 5 is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondent No. 6 is a college started by the respondent No. 5. The permission to open the said college was granted by the State of Maharashtra by their letter dt. 8th June, 1984, to start the college for the academic year 1984-1985 after getting necessary recognition from the University. The said permission was given on condition that for a period of three years, no grant-in-aid will be provided to the college and that in each of the Branch of Education, namely, Arts and Commerce, for the first year, there should be minimum 40 students and out of that minimum 30 students shall appear for the University examination, to be held at the end of academic year 1984-1985. It is further to be noted that the Government has provided a scheme of Grant in Aid by Government resolution dt. 4th January, 1989, and 8th of August, 1991. By these Resolutions the Government has provided a scheme to release the grants, step by step, to the colleges which are started since 1983-1984 onwards. Permission to these colleges was given on no Grant- in-aid basis. As per the said scheme, for a period of initial three years the Government was not to provide any grant, in the 4th year 25 per cent of the approved and admissible expenditure, in the 5th year, 50 per cent of the approved and admissible expenditure and, in the sixth year, 75 per cent of the approved and admissible expenditure and in the 7th year, and thereafter, hundred per cent grant was to be paid. However, these grants were admissible under the circumstances and conditions as per the Grant-in-Aid Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra, applicable to Senior Colleges, as provided in the Government Resolution dt. 3rd of October, 1979. Presently, this Court is not supposed to enter into this area but what is pertinent to be noted is that the respondent No. 5 was approved for the grant by letter dt. 3rd of July, 1990 wherein the above referred scheme of releasing the grant, step by step, has been stated but there was condition in the said letter that in order that the college shall become entitled for the grant in aid, the said college will have to satisfy the norms laid down in respect of the students taking education in the said college, as provided in the Government Resolution dt. 25th September, 1979, and 10th of November, 1987. There were other conditions. One of such condition No. 4 was that the management of the respondent No. 6 college, namely, respondent No. 5, should have appointed teaching and non-teaching staff on the terms and conditions as laid down by the Government of Maharashtra and the University and that, their wage structure and/or their salary structure shall be in accordance with the salary structure provided by Government and University. Rest of the conditions are not relevant and, therefore, are not referred to. Rest of the conditions are not relevant and, therefore, are not referred to. One more fact requires to be mentioned which appears from the reply filed by the management, respondent No. 5, that there were disputes in the management and, therefore, the administrator was appointed by the University. However, that order of appointment of administrator was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 2917/1992 wherein this Court granted interim relief, restraining the committee appointed by the University. However, it appears that this Court appointed the Deputy Director of Education as administrator to look after the Arts and Commerce Faculty of the respondent 6 college. The said petition was decided on 25-8-1994 and the orders under challenge were set aside by this Court. The petitions preferred in the Apex Court were rejected. However, the management states that during the period 1992-1995, either there was Board of Directors of Administrators appointed by the University or administrator, namely, Deputy Director of Education, who were looking after the affairs of the society and college, respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is further stated that this is the only college where the payments are made by the Deputy Director of Education directly to the petitioners and deposited in their account. 5. All above facts will point out that the petitioners approached to this Court because their salary was stopped from January, 1997 in view of the orders of the respondent No. 2, Director of Higher Education, Pune. The prayer made by the petitioners is to direct the respondents to release the salary grants of the Commerce Faculty of the respondent No. 6 from January, 1997 more specifically and further to direct the respondents to pay the salary due and payable since January, 1997 and to make payment of salary in each month regularly. 6. We would like to observe at the inception that this petition by the employees of the respondent No. 5 trust and respondent No. 6 college, claiming their salary from the respondents. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not approached this Court, making claim in respect of the salary grant of the petitioners and/or of the Commerce Faculty, which the respondents No. 5 and 6 are entitled to get from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It further requires to be mentioned that so far as Arts Faculty of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is concerned, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It further requires to be mentioned that so far as Arts Faculty of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is concerned, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are getting the salary grants and other maintenance grants. The dispute is only in respect of the Commerce Faculty of the respondents 5 and 6. 7. It must be mentioned at the outset that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being instrumentality of the State, the petition as against respondents No. 5 and 6 is tenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because they are discharging the functions of the State namely, to impart education. It is further pertinent to note that the private institutions which come forward for discharging the functions of the State, namely, of imparting education, the State may provide for Grant-in-aid to such institutions. As the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present matter are imparting higher education, the Government Resolution dt. 3rd October, 1979, specifically mentions that subject to the availability of the funds, maintenance grants due to the college in a year should be equal to (A minus B) and then the items in A have been stated and then the items in B have been stated. Reference to this aspect is made because the release of the grant, so far as higher education is concerned, is dependent upon the availability of the funds with the Government. However, what is required to be stated is that for the purposes of availing the facility of grant in aid, those institutions shall have to satisfy the norms stated in the Government Resolutions and then and then only the said institutions will be entitled to get the maintenance grants, salary grants or any other grant, which have been provided for by the Government in the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. However, this will clarify therefore, that it is the management like respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who run the educational institutions, are entitled to claim the grants either maintenance or salary, on satisfying all the conditions and norms laid down by the respondent State and if, the norms are satisfied, the Government is bound to release the salary grants, because of the principle of promissory estoppel. However, the institution becomes entitled for grants after having incurred expenditure due and admissible as per the norms provided in the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. 8. However, the institution becomes entitled for grants after having incurred expenditure due and admissible as per the norms provided in the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. 8. Presently, we are concerned with the aspect of salary grants. No doubt, even though the management is entitled to get a salary grant of the employees, employed by the said management, the Government is depositing the amount of salary in the respective accounts of the employees in order to see that the salary grant released by the Government ultimately is received by the employees, however, that does not mean that the Government is liable to pay to the employees employed by the management, namely, respondents 5 and 6 in this petition. The question, therefore, is posed as to who is liable for payment of the salary of the employees of the educational institutions which are run on no grant basis and/or supported by the Grant-in Aid Scheme provided by the Government. It requires to be stated that it is the trust like respondent No. 5 who desires to open a senior college like respondent No. 6 therefore, approaches the respondent Government for getting permission for opening the said college and, on getting a permission, either on Grant-in Aid and/or without the grant, the said trust is supposed to open the college. In the present matter, the Government Resolution referred to above points out that initially permission was granted to open the respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 5 on no Grant-in-Aid basis for a period of three years and, thereafter, on satisfying the norms of the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, the respondent No. 6 was to get the grant, step by step, as stated in the earlier para of this judgment. What is evident is that after completion of seven years, the college gets a hundred per cent grant. This itself will point out that the educational institution like respondent No. 5 will have to point out that during the period of six to seven years, as stated in the Government Resolution, they have successfully run the said college namely, respondent No. 6 and, thereafter, it gets a hundred per cent grant, either salary or non salary, however, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are required to appoint a staff as per the qualification prescribed by the University, on a pay scale prescribed by the Government and the University and they are required to be paid month to month. This will also point out that all other expenditure has to be incurred by the said trust and college like that of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and, therefore, during the period when there is no grant, it is management who will have to pay full salary of the petitioners. Further, from fourth year onwards, if the said institution satisfies the norms laid down by the Government and, if the expenditure is approved, and is admissible, the step by step grant will be released every year, by increase of 25 per cent so as to make it hundred per cent in the seventh year. This scheme, at the most, will point out that so far as the salary grants are concerned, every year from the fourth year onwards the institution which is entitled for the grant like respondent Nos. 5 and 6 may be put to a lesser burden of 25 per cent and after completion of the seventh year, will get hundred per cent grant. However, to maintain that hundred per cent grant the institution has to consistently, year to year, maintain the college in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government. Therefore, every year, the question of admissibility of the grant is required to be considered by the State Government taking into consideration the norms laid down by the Government. This make it clear that even though on satisfying the norms, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are entitled to get the grants, they may lose the said grant if the terms and conditions are not satisfied and in that eventuality, Government is entitled to reduce the grant to be provided to the said institution, like respondents 5 and 6 and therefore, the consistent control has been provided by appointing officers like Officers on Special Duty who look into these norms and the question of admissibility of the grant. This makes it clear that the claim of grant by the institutions like respondents Nos. 5 and 6 is a matter between the Government and the management, to be considered on year to year basis, and the employees are not concerned with that. 9. This makes it clear that the claim of grant by the institutions like respondents Nos. 5 and 6 is a matter between the Government and the management, to be considered on year to year basis, and the employees are not concerned with that. 9. It makes it further clear that there is no employer-employee relationship in between the Government and the employees of the college namely, the petitioners. It is abundantly clear that the petitioners are appointed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and that their appointments are approved by the University for the purpose that they are qualified in accordance with the qualifications provided by the University and for other purpose. Not only that but the employees and teachers have to execute a contract as provided in Marathwada University Act, 1974, Section 73(2), Statute 260 in Form Appendix 'A'. However that itself is not sufficient to get a salary grant because the rest of the conditions provided in the Government Resolutions, referred to above, are required to be satisfied. What is pertinent to note is that as a result of the appointment order being issued by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, there is service contract existing between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 or respondent No. 4 University and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners is based on the service contract as against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. But respondent Nos. 1 to 4 namely, Government and University are possessed of power to see that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 pay salary as per Government and University approved pay scales. 10. The petitioners have also stated in para No. 6 of the petition that "the management (respondents 5 and 6) is extracting the work from the petitioners, but not paying the salaries to them. 5 and 6 pay salary as per Government and University approved pay scales. 10. The petitioners have also stated in para No. 6 of the petition that "the management (respondents 5 and 6) is extracting the work from the petitioners, but not paying the salaries to them. The petitioners submit that it is primary responsibility of the management to pay the salary however, the management has refused to pay the salary on the ground that the Government has withheld grants for the Commerce Faculty and, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court." It is being pointed out that it is the case of the petitioners that the primary liability of paying the salary of the petitioners is on the management and that is rightly so because of the service contract. If the salary grant is released by Government, petitioners may get salary easily as against economic difficulties and/or disputes in between members of management. However, that does not mean that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directly responsible for the salary of the petitioners because the salary grant is to be released after satisfaction of the norms laid down by the Government by the management and as earlier observed, the dispute in respect of the grant in aid, either for salary or non salary grant, is a dispute between the management and the Government and the employees of the said management have nothing to do with it. This being the position, the management is liable for making payment of the salary even though the management may obtain or may not obtain the salary grant from the State Government. In view of this settled position, the claim of the petitioners to issue Mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, to release their salary grants cannot be said to be appropriate and legal one. However, the said claim is a valid and enforceable as against respondents Nos. 5 and 6. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 and 6 submitted that the entire staff was employed in the year 1992, when either the Committee appointed by the University and/or Officer of the State - Director of Education was administrator and, therefore, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are not liable. He has further submitted that there is no primary responsibility of payment of salary on respondents Nos. 5 and 6. 5 and 6 are not liable. He has further submitted that there is no primary responsibility of payment of salary on respondents Nos. 5 and 6. These submissions are required to be considered only for rejection. What is pertinent to note is that the administrator came to be appointed because of the dispute in between the management and, therefore, in order to protect the educational activity and interests of the students, who are beneficiaries of the said Trust, the intervention was carried out by the University and, while pending writ petition, by this Court. However, this does not mean that the management is relieved of its responsibility because orders of appointing the staff, if issued by the committee appointed by the University and/or by the Director of Education, being the administrator appointed by this Court, was as an officer of the said trust and college namely, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and in the absence of a dispute, the said staff would have been appointed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and therefore, it is equally a staff appointed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 namely, the management and therefore, the liability to make the payment of the salary of the petitioners and also all the other employees of the Commerce Faculty more particularly employees of the said respondent No. 6 college is on respondent No. 5 and 6. 12. Then the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 pointed out the letter dt. 30-8-1997 Exh. U, letter dt. 15-9-1997 at Exh. V, letter dt. 24-9-1997 at Exh. W and letter dt. 25-9-1997 at Exh. X and thereby pointed out that the respondent No. 2 have been requested by the Joint Director of Higher Education at Nanded namely, respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for the admissibility of the grant to Commerce Faculty. The reference made to this in these letters appears in respect of the year 1989-1990 onwards. These letters make it clear that from 1984-1989 the strength of the students of the First Year is not in accordance with the Government norms and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is requested to consider the case for release of the grants from the 1990 onwards. According to learned Counsel the claim of the respondent Nos. These letters make it clear that from 1984-1989 the strength of the students of the First Year is not in accordance with the Government norms and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is requested to consider the case for release of the grants from the 1990 onwards. According to learned Counsel the claim of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for grant is a valid one and the Government is considering it and under these circumstances it is not necessary to consider the petition and the petitioners can wait till the salary grant is approved by the respondent No. 2. 13. We make it clear that we have not scrutinised the matter for the purpose as to whether, on the basis of the Government norms for grant in aid, the respondents No. 5 and 6 are entitled to get the said grant in aid. If the proposals of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are being moved smoothly with the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 may wait for their decision and/or may persuade those authorities in due course of time, as is suitable to respondents No. 5 and 6, so as to release the grants. As observed earlier, that is a controversy in between the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the petitioners have nothing to do with it. We hope that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may take appropriate decision in respect of this grant to be released in favour of the Commerce Faculty of respondents No. 5 and 6 at the earliest. However, this would not disentitle the petitioners from claiming their salary from the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as stated earlier and, therefore, we are inclined to allow the petition as against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 14. The petition is partly allowed. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are hereby directed to pay the salary of the petitioners from Jan. 1997 till today within period of three months and shall continue to pay monthly salary of petitioners, on or before tenth day of each month. The petition, so far as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is concerned is rejected. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant costs. Rule made absolute in above terms. Petition partly allowed.