Judgment : .1. The petitioner was working in the second respondent unaided College as Principal and attained his age of superannuation on 17. 1993. Placing reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education, dated 12. 1981, which is, of course, applicable to the aided colleges, providing that if any teacher has to retire in the middle of the academic year, he would be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year, the petitioner claims that he is entitled for the benefit of the said G.O. and to work till the end of the respective academic year, viz.35. 1994. 2. It appears that the petitioner also made a representation on 7. 1993 to permit him to continue his service as Principal, till the end of the academic year, viz. till 35. 1994. The said representation dated 7. 1993 was considered by the governing body of the second respondent-College on 7. 1993. However, the same was rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from service on 17. 1993. Hence, the above writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jawahar College Staff Association etc./Secretary, Jawahar Science College, etc. v. University of Madras & others, 1994 WLR 84, contends that whether the petitioner-College is aided or unaided, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. 1976, squarely applies to the second respondent-College and therefore, the condition of service which is applicable to the aided-College is equally applicable to the case of the petitioner, with all force. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education Department dated 12. 1981, irrespective of the fact that the second respondent-College is aided or not. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Sundaram, v. The Secretary, CSI Diocese of Madras & Ors., W.A. No. 1179 of 1993 dated 9. 1994 and contends that even though the said academic year is over, still the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the period for which he was not permitted to continue during the academic year June, 1993 to May, 1994. 5. Mr. Haridoss, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, do not dispute the contention that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Act, is applicable to the second respondent. 5. Mr. Haridoss, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, do not dispute the contention that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Act, is applicable to the second respondent. However, takes a strong exception as to the applicability of the G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education Department, dated 12. 1981 to the second respondent- College, as they are not aided. In other words, it is contended that the said G.O. is applicable only to the teachers working in the aided College but not in unaided College, viz., the second respondent and contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. .7. In Jawahar College Staff Association etc. Secretary. Jawahar Science College, etc. v. University of Madras & others, 1994 WLR 84, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: ."a reading of the provisions of the definitions of private college and educational agency in S.2 (8) and S.2 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Private’’ Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, makes it clear that whether a private college is an aided or an unaided college, whether it came into existence either before or after the date when the Act came into force makes no difference as long as it is a college which is maintained by an educational agency and approved by or affiliated to a university and permitted or de emed to be permitted under the Act and it has to be held that it is a Private College falling within the scope of the Act." 8. The above proposition, of course, is not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, to the effect that the second respondent-College comes within the purview of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. Similarly, it is not disputed that till date the State has not framed any rule fixing the age of retirement either by exercising powers under Section 17 of the Act which deals with the conditional service of teachers and others or by exercising Section 53 of the Act, viz., the rule making power. In the absence of such rules, either made under Section 17 or under Section 53, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education Department dated 12. In the absence of such rules, either made under Section 17 or under Section 53, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education Department dated 12. 1981 is intended to be applicable for the teachers working in the aided Colleges, the same could be extended to unaided Colleges also, as the condition of service of the teachers working in all the Colleges are expected to maintain uniformity, by applying the doctrine of equal work, equal emolument. Mere absence of provisions will not, in my considered opinion, take away the rights of the petitioner working in the unaided school, if they are otherwise entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education Department dated 12. 1981, which enables the teacher who retires in the middle of the academic year to continue till the end of the academic year. 9. Once such conclusion is arrived, at, I do not find any strain in moulding the relief that the petitioner should be compensated for the period he was not permitted to work till the end of the respective academic year, viz., from 17. 1993 to 35. 1994, applying the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Sundaram v. Secretary, CSI Diocese of Madras & Ors., W.A. No. 1179 of 1993, dated 9. 1994 wherein the Division Bench moulded the relief and directed the respondent therein to pay the amount for which the petitioner therein was not permitted to work till the end of the academic year, which was subsequently confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP Nos.22604 to 22068 of 1994 on 1. 1995. Therefore, I am obliged to direct the second respondent to calculate the amount payable to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education Department dated 12. 1981, had he been permitted to continue from 17. 1993 to 35. 1994 and to pay the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.