JUDGMENT The instant writ application is filed by the teachers of Ballygunge Siksha Sadan. The said school is managed by the respondent No. 5 Ballygunge Siksha Samiti, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society, it is averred by the respondents was established by the members of the Marwari community. Respondents have on that basis claimed minority status for the school in question, inter alia, on the ground of language, culture and heritage. The respondents No. 7 institution has from time to time received recognition and is presently a recognised Higher Secondary School. 2. According to the respondents though they had applied for and were granted a special Constitution by the concerned Government authorities, the same, does not in any manner affect the right of the school to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 3. The school in question, it is alleged by the respondents is run, out of its own funds and does not received any aid whatsoever from the Government, save and except dearness allowances to the approved teaching and non-teaching staff. According to the respondents less than half of the total strength of the teaching and non-teaching staff taken together are approved staff for payment of dearness allowances. 4. As to the respondent claim for minority status with respect to the school in question, the matter need not detain us in this enquiry all that is a subject-matter of another writ application which was to be heard analogously with the instant matter. However, with consent of the parties the present matter was taken up for hearing first while the other writ application was adjourned to another date to be disposed of on its own merits. 5. According to the petitioners, the school in question was initially established as a Hindi Medium School. But presently, the said school has turned into a English Medium School having Hindi and Bengali as first languages, while the medium of instruction is English. 6. According to the petitioners for the last several years less than 50% of the teachers were duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, although several posts are lying vacant and that even in the matter of approval of the teaching and non-teaching staff the authorities of the said school neither followed any existing rules nor any norms. 7. 6. According to the petitioners for the last several years less than 50% of the teachers were duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, although several posts are lying vacant and that even in the matter of approval of the teaching and non-teaching staff the authorities of the said school neither followed any existing rules nor any norms. 7. The instant writ application is mainly concerned with the service conditions of the teachers more particularly with respect to the benefits of pay scales as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. The petitioners claimed the same benefits of pay scales as were extended to other aided educational institutions in West Bengal. 8. After the Third Pay Commission was announced, the teachers of the school in question demanded implementation thereof. It is the case of the petitioners that after protracted negotiation and discussion, the management of the school were agreed to extend the benefits of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission but the pay scales which were offered to the petitioners were not in conformity with the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission in their entirety. 9. That on the basis of representations made by the petitioners before the State authorities, inspection was made and being not satisfied with the Constitution of the Managing Committee of the School in terms of special Constitution approved by the Board as well as with general administration of the said school, certain action was proposed by the Authorities apprehending the same, the respondent management filed a writ petition being Matter No. 2017 of 1991, wherein by order dated 27th May, 1991 passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice Mohitosh Majumdar, the order of status quo was granted and thereafter His Lordship extended the same till the heating of the matter by a further order dated 29.5.91. 10. While passing the aforesaid orders dated 29.5.91, His Lordship Justice Majumdar was pleased to further direct that no action adverse to the rights of the teaching and non-teaching staff shall be taken without the leave of the Court. 11. 10. While passing the aforesaid orders dated 29.5.91, His Lordship Justice Majumdar was pleased to further direct that no action adverse to the rights of the teaching and non-teaching staff shall be taken without the leave of the Court. 11. It is, thereafter, that the present writ application has been filed seeking, inter alia, a writ in the nature of mandamus :- "(a) ..................to properly fix the salaries of the teaching and non teaching staff of Ballygunge Siksha Sadan of 51A, Gariahat Road Calcutta-700019, including the petitioners herein, and to remove all anomalies, in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission and as extended to other Government aided D.A. giving Schools, without any further delay and also to pay all arrears of such fixation from 1st January, 1988 as recommended by the Third Pay Commission. (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities of Ballygunge Siksha Sadan of 51A, Gariahat Road, Calcutta-700019, to accord increments to all teaching and non-teaching staff of the school, including the petitioners herein, on uniform basis and without any discrimination whatsoever." 12. The grounds based on which the said reliefs are claimed are inter alia, that the school in question is a Government aided (D.A. receiving) Institution. They are required to act reasonably and in accordance with the law in the matter of fixation of scales of pay and in the matter of according increments on uniform basis. 13. Reliance has been placed upon certain resolution passed by the Managing Committee of Ballygunge Siksha Sadan (Annexure 'C') wherein at item No. 12, it was decided as under :- "On representation made by the Teachers it was decided that with effect from 1.1.1985 Basic. D.A. allowances may be paid as applicable to Government Aided Schools." 14. Reliance has been placed upon Annexure 'D' which is a latter dated 1.2.91 addressed to the guardians informing them that the institution had :- .................... to effect substantial change in the pay scale of all our teaching and non- teaching staff as a sequence of the Government implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. It has thus become necessary to revise the tuition fees to Rs. to effect substantial change in the pay scale of all our teaching and non- teaching staff as a sequence of the Government implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. It has thus become necessary to revise the tuition fees to Rs. 150/- per month with effect from 1st May, 1991 for the Primary & Secondary Sections and with effect from 1st July, 1991 for the Higher Secondary Section." By that circular letter addressed to guardians the admission fee was increased to Rs. 150/- with the effect from 1st May, 1991. 15. On behalf of the respondents, affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by Shri Girish Kumar Khaitan affirmed on 8th June, 1992. Objection has been raised as to maintainability of the above writ petition against a registered society. While traversing the allegations made in the writ application, it is stated that the grievance of the staff relates to non-implementation of the report of Third Pay Commission in its entirety that is inclusive of arrears. The recommendations of the Third Pay Commission which are applicable to Government sponsored and Government aided schools cannot and do not have any application whatsoever to the school in question. The recommendations of the Pay Commission not being applicable to the school, the implementation thereof either in entirety or otherwise cannot and does not arise. The school is a D.A. getting school to which the Pay Commissions do not apply. The school, it is asserted is not a Government aided institution. 16. Respondents have denied that there are anomalies in the matter of fixation of scale of pay which are fixed according to capabilities qualifications and experience of the teachers. Higher scales, it is stated, are offered to attract capable and qualified teachers. The salary and allowances received by the staff of the school, it has been asserted in Paragraph 65 of the affidavit-in-opposition, are not less advantages than to their counter-parts in schools to which the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission are applicable. It is also stated therein that the questions of implementation of the recommendations in entirety cannot and does not arise. The school authorities are neither liable to nor in a position to pay any arrears with the effect from 1.1.1988 as per recommendation of the Pay Commission. 17. It is also stated therein that the questions of implementation of the recommendations in entirety cannot and does not arise. The school authorities are neither liable to nor in a position to pay any arrears with the effect from 1.1.1988 as per recommendation of the Pay Commission. 17. The school in question is being run entirely out of its own fund and does not receive any aid whatsoever from the Government, save and except dearness allowances paid only to the approved teaching and non-teaching staff. Less than 50% of the teachers are approved. Even in the cases of approved teachers, the Government of West Bengal all on a sudden decreased disbursement of dearness allowances with the effect from 1st March, 1989 on the ground that their basic pay was higher than what the Government authorities thought correct. The amount received less from the Government is, however, being paid by the school. Even those teachers who have not been accorded approval, their salary and emoluments were not affected in any manner since the school authorities duly paid to the said staff, the amount equivalent to the dearness allowance which would have been paid by the Government had they been approved. 18. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that the respondent authorities generate funds from tuition fees which are higher than other institutions. In particular it is stated that the respondents school authorities have followed the recommendations of the Pay Commission upto Second Pay Commission. But have chosen not to follow the recommendations in the case of Third Pay Commission in the matter of recommendation of First Pay Commission the management of the school agreed that the basic, D.A. would be paid as applicable to the Government aided schools. The teaching and non-teaching staff of the respondents school are getting less salary and allowances in comparison with their counterparts in other Government aided institutions or D.A. getting institutions. 19. The State authorities respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 20. Mr. B.R. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, apart from urging the contentions of the petitioner as noticed above relied upon the Government Order No 33-Edn. (B) dated 7.3.90 whereby it is directed that all categories of the institution shall adopt the recommendations of Pay Commission with respect to the revised pay scales. It was the submission of Mr. Mr. B.R. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, apart from urging the contentions of the petitioner as noticed above relied upon the Government Order No 33-Edn. (B) dated 7.3.90 whereby it is directed that all categories of the institution shall adopt the recommendations of Pay Commission with respect to the revised pay scales. It was the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya that the institution in question is governed by the said Government Order and the school management is bound by the same. It was also contended by Mr. Bhattacharya that the school is governed by the special Constitution and the claim of the respondents with respect to minorities status is untenable. 21. Mr. Samaraditya Paul, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the school authorities, likewise reiterating the contentions noted supra, in their affidavit-in-opposition and contended that the school in question is not an aided school and inasmuch as, it does not receive any grant-in-aid. The Government Order No. 33-Edn., it was contended, has no application to the institution in question for that reason. There is no statutory rule or any provision whereby it can be said that the private institution such as the respondent is required to pay to its staff in accordance with the Pay Commission recommendation or any scales as prescribed by the Government. Above all, it was contended that the school being a minority unaided private institution, the invocation of writ jurisdiction for the relief as claimed is wholly misconceived. The instant writ petition, it was submitted, is not maintainable. 22. In view of the rival contentions, the points that arise for considerations are :- (i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable ? (ii) Whether the Government Order No. 33 Edn. is applicable to the respondent institution ? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs, if any, as prayed for? POINT NO. I 23. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the school is governed by the special Constitution and the Management Rules, 1969 and is bound by the directions issued by the Government with regard to the service conditions of the teachers and staff the teachers in privately managed schools are entitled to same scale of pay and privileges as available to their counterparts in the Government sponsored schools. It was further submitted that the private educational institutions caters to the needs of the educational opportunity which has an clement of public interest and, therefore, the teachers-petitioners herein can avail of the remedy under Article 226. 24. As to the minority status of the institution in question, the matter requires to be considered in detail in the writ petition filed by the respondents and for that reason, the same is not being considered in the instant case. Suffice it to state here that the State authorities have not accepted the contention of the respondents with respect to the institution being a minority institution. 25. Reference need only be made to the Supreme Court Judgment in (1) Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1986 (4) SCC 707 , wherein the following paragraph from the judgment of the Supreme Court in (2) All Sainis High School v. Govt. of A.P. reported in AIR 1980 SC 1042 , was extracted :- “In All Saints High School v. Govt. of A.P., Chandrachud, C.J. after referring to several earlier decision of the Court said (SCC pp. 485-86, para 3) ; These decisions show that while the right of the religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice cannot be interfered with, restrictions by way of regulations for the purpose of ensuring educational standards and maintaining the excellence thereof can be validly prescribed. For maintaining educational standards of an institution, it is necessary to ensure that it is competently staffed. Conditions of service which prescribe minimum qualifications for the staff, their pay scales, their entitlement to other benefits of service and the laying down of safeguards which must be observed before they are removed from service or their services are terminated are all permissible measures of a regulatory character. (Emphasis added) and after referring to the leading case of the (3) Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 , and in (4) State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial reported in AIR 1970 SC 2079 . (Emphasis added) and after referring to the leading case of the (3) Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 , and in (4) State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial reported in AIR 1970 SC 2079 . With respect to the vires of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act which requires that the scales of pay and allowances shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding statue in schools run by the appropriate authority and which further prescribed the procedure for enforcement of the requirement, it was held, is a permissible regulation aimed at attracting competent staff and consequently at the excellence of the educations institution, which in no way detracts from the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1), to the minority institution to administer their educational institutions, and, therefore, to the extent that Section 12 of the Delhi Education Act makes the said Section 10 inapplicable to unaided minority institutions it is clearly discriminatory. The State authorities in that case was directed to enforce the provisions of Chapter-IV except Section 8 (2) of the Delhi Education Act in the manner provided in the chapter in the case of Frank Anthony Public School. 26. In the instant case, the petitioners are seeking enforcement of the Government Order No. 33-Edn. dated 6.3.1990. 27. Mr. Samaraditya Paul sought to distinguish the said judgment by submitting that the petitioners in that care had questioned the vires of the various provisions of the Delhi Education Act and the writ petition in that case was filed by the management and not by the teachers of the private institution. 28. Mr. Paul referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (5) Vidya Ram Misra v. The Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College & Anr. reported in AIR 1972 SC 1450 , wherein it was held that where services of a Lecturer appointed by reason of a contract having no legal force between himself and the Managing Committee which is not a statutory body were terminated by the later, the Lecturer cannot have any cause of action on breach of law but only on breach of contract. It was held in that case that the remedy of the Lecturer was only by way of a suit for damages and not by way of application under Article 226. It was held in that case that the remedy of the Lecturer was only by way of a suit for damages and not by way of application under Article 226. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (6) AIR 1972 AP 83 , wherein it was held that a private education society managing an educational institution does not come under the definition of State. 19. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this High Court in (7) Sardar Jaswant Singh v. Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal & Ors. reported is AIR 1962 Calcutta 20, wherein it was held that the revised School Code, 1930 is not a body of statutory rules and, therefore, writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued against the Managing Committee of a private school for infringement of a rule (Rule 33 in that case) incorporated in the Revised School Code. 30. Reliance was placed upon in (8) Abdur Rahaman v. Deputy Director of School Education, Anglo-Indian Section & Ors. reported in 1991 (1) CLJ 80 , wherein Justice K.M. Yusuf held that no writ petition is maintainable against a non-government school not receiving any aid. The relief claimed in that case was with respect to admission of a student. 31. Reliance was also placed upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in (9) Director, Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Jadavpur & Ors. v. Ashoke Kumar Roy & Ors. reported in 1992 (1) CLJ 319 , wherein after holding that the Indian Council of Cultivation of Science is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and being an autonomous body is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It may be appropriate to refer to the observations made by B.P. Banerjee, J, who spoke for the Court in that case. After referring to (10) A.M.S.S.M.V.S.J.M. Smarakt Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 , it was observed as under :- “The ratio of the judgment is that whatever may be the form of the body concerned, what is relevant is the nature of duty imposed, if the duty imposed upon such authority is of public nature or in other words, a mandamus would lie for the purpose of fulfilling public duties and/or responsibilities. It is a firmly established principle that a mandamus would not lie to enforce private duties and/or private obligations.” 32. Applying the above principles to the instant case, it cannot be said that the service of the petitioners is not controlled or regulated by any statute or rule having the force of law. Unless, the respondents institution succeeds in its claim as to minority status, the service of the teachers had staff would be governed by the Management Rules, 1969 and their services cannot be said to be purely contractual and outside the domain of public law. 33. However, as the question of the minority status of respondent-institution is yet to be adjudicated upon, the decision of this Court cannot rest on that technically. 34. The case directly in point is (11) K.. Krishnacharyulu & Ors. v. Sri Venkateswar Hindu College of Engineering & Anr. reported in 1997 (3) SCC 571 , The question posed by the Supreme Court was thus :- “When there is no statutory, rules issued in that behalf and the institution, at the relevant time, belong not in receipt of any grant-in-aid; whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable ?” It was answered as under :- “The private institutions cater to the need of providing educational opportunities. The teacher duly, appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as to which forum case should approach. The High Court has held that the remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act. When an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element, the teacher, being the arm of the institution, is also entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226; the jurisdiction part is very wide.” It was accordingly, held that the writ petition was maintainable and the petitioners in that case were held entitled to equal pay so as to be on par with the Government employees under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. 35. In the light of the said authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, it must be held that the writ petition is maintainable. POINT NO. II 36. This point involves the applicability of Government Order No. 33-Edn. dated 7.3.90. 35. In the light of the said authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, it must be held that the writ petition is maintainable. POINT NO. II 36. This point involves the applicability of Government Order No. 33-Edn. dated 7.3.90. It is recited in the said order that the Government constituted a Pay Commission in terms of reference which included that the Commission would also examine the structure of emoluments and conditions of service of the :- "(a) teaching and non-teaching staff of Government sponsored or aided :- (i) schools upto Class XII standard (ii) Training Institutions Primary of Teachers (iii) Libraries (iv) Polytechnics and Junior Technical Schools. (b) Non-teaching employees of Non-Government colleges (sponsored and aided). (c) Employees of District School Boards. With due regard to the Financial Resources of the State Government. After careful consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission in regard to the scale of pay, age of superannuation, retirement benefits and other terms and conditions of service, the Governor is pleased to direct that for all categories mentioned above, all but scale Numbers 9 to 15 as recommended by the Pay Commission at Pp. 65-66 of Volume 1 of its Report and scale Numbers 9 to 15 as recommended at P. 69 ibid shall be adopted. The revised pay scale (details of which have been shown in Annexure (iii) to be prescribed for different posts/cadres/employees shall correspond to the scales prescribed earlier for such posts/cadres/employees (hereinafter referred to as existing scales, details of which have been shown in Annexure-II), by G.O. No. 372-Edn. (B) dated 31st July, 1981 as amended from time to time and other subsequent orders issued on the subject. The Governor is also pleased to direct that the date of effect of the revised scale, the manner of fixation of pay in the revised scales and other conditions of service of employees shall be as set out in the following paragraphs.” 37. The revised scales it was directed shall be nationally effective from 1st January, 1986 as recommended by the Pay Commission but shall be actually paid with effect from 1st January, 1988. 38. In the definition Clause (2)(e) employee is defined as under :- "employee" means a member of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Non-Government/Sponsored/Aided educational institutions and other organisations as mentioned in Annexure-I." 39. It is the contention of Mr. 38. In the definition Clause (2)(e) employee is defined as under :- "employee" means a member of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Non-Government/Sponsored/Aided educational institutions and other organisations as mentioned in Annexure-I." 39. It is the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that four categories of staff of educational institutions are postulated in the said definition that is :- (i) Non-Government (ii) Sponsored (iii) Aided and (iv) Other organisations as mentioned in Annexure-I. 40. The submissions of Mr. Paul, however, is that the categories of employees referred to in the said G.O. No. 33-Edn. are Government sponsored or aided institutions and with respect to Non-Government institutions only employees of those institutions who are receiving and come within the definition of employees for the purpose of the benefits granted by the said G.O. 41. Even assuming for the moment that the institution in question is run by voluntary organisation under the administrative control of Education Department, it is a Non- Government educational institution. 42. The respondent-institution is receiving D.A. from the Government and to that extent, it must be held to be an aided educational institution. It is a recognised institution and is, therefore, under the administrative control of Education Department. In my view, therefore, the said G.O. No. 33-Edn. dated 7.3.90 is applicable to the institution in question and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit thereof. 43. It must be stated here that Mr. Paul, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-institution sought to draw a distinction between the institutions receiving grant-in-aid and the institutions receiving D.A. It was the submission of Mr. Paul that only those institutions that are in receipt of payment of grant-in-aid can be regarded as aided educational institution and not those merely receiving D.A. The said contention was sought to be buttressed by referring to the G.O. No. 343-Edn. dated 3.3.1973 whereby it was directed that with effect from 1st May, 1972 grant-in-aid shall be paid to the high and higher secondary schools in the manner and subject to the conditions specified therein. For coming under the scheme certain conditions had to be satisfied and the manner of receiving grant-in-aid was prescribed therein. dated 3.3.1973 whereby it was directed that with effect from 1st May, 1972 grant-in-aid shall be paid to the high and higher secondary schools in the manner and subject to the conditions specified therein. For coming under the scheme certain conditions had to be satisfied and the manner of receiving grant-in-aid was prescribed therein. The pay meats of grant-in-aid was however, subject to the further conditions, viz :- (i) The school shall realise tuition fees at the minimum rates prescribed by the Government; (ii) School shall not alter rates of other fees, if any, without previous permission of Government; (iii) School shall pay salary and allowances to the approved teaching and non-teaching staff according to the scales and rates approved by the State Government from time to time and certain other conditions have also been prescribed therein. 44. Mr. Paul has also referred to certain other Government Circulars like 935(16)-GA/4G-1-GA 73 dated 16th May, 1973, whereby the necessary orders of Government on the mechanism of fixation of pay in the revised scales in regard to the teaching and non-teaching staff receiving lump-sum grant, it was directed, would be issued separately and that with respect to reviled scales of pay introduced from 1.4.1970 in respect of high and higher secondary schools, admitted to salary deficit scheme as out lined in para 4(c) of the Government Order No. 343-Edn. dated 3.3.1973, certain principles were laid down pending issue of detail orders by the Government. 45. It was the submission of Mr. Paul that in the light of the said orders of Government and Circular issued by the Directorate, the institution in question is not an added institution nor can the same be regarded as one such aided institution as the conditions applicable for the grant-in-aid prescribed, have not been fulfilled by the institution nor was any application made for that purpose by the institution. 46. As regards D.A., the State itself has made a distinction qua grant-in-aid and separate directions have been issued by the Government. One such Memo No. 3662-16-SC/S dated 23rd September, 1980, wherein it was directed that whole-time bonafide staff of Non-Government Secondary Schools not covered under salary deficit scheme were sanctioned additional Government D.A. as specified therein. 47. In short, it is the submission of Mr. One such Memo No. 3662-16-SC/S dated 23rd September, 1980, wherein it was directed that whole-time bonafide staff of Non-Government Secondary Schools not covered under salary deficit scheme were sanctioned additional Government D.A. as specified therein. 47. In short, it is the submission of Mr. Paul that receipt of D.A by the institution in question cannot be equated with grant-in-aid nor for that reason can the institution be treated as an aided institution. 48. There can be no dispute with the above submissions as regards the distinction of the norms prescribed by the Government for grant-in-aid to the institutions and sanctions of D.A. In respect of staff of certain institutions. Different conditions have been prescribed which required to be fulfilled before an educational institution can be admitted to grant-in-aid. The respondent-institution admittedly is not one such receiving grant-in-aid. Admittedly, it is receiving D.A. from the Government and as sanctioned by the Government from time to time, payments are being made to such of the approved staff as have been found eligible for grant of D.A. The Circular No. 33-Edn. dated 7.3.90, however, makes no distinction between the institution receiving grant-in-aid or receiving aid from the Government in the form of D.A. 49. In this connection, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in (12) Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 306. In para 2 of the said judgment, it has been observed that the Kothari Commission was appointed by the Government of India to examine the conditions of service of the teacher with the object of improving the standard of education in the country and that, among other things the Kothari Commission recommended that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements, such as Government, local bodies or private organizations should be the same. The Supreme Court also observed that almost all the States decided to implement the recommendations of the Kothari Commissions. 50. It is not, however, brought out to the instant case whether the State of West Bengal had also decided to implement the recommendation of the Kothari Commission. From the G.O. No. 33-Edn. The Supreme Court also observed that almost all the States decided to implement the recommendations of the Kothari Commissions. 50. It is not, however, brought out to the instant case whether the State of West Bengal had also decided to implement the recommendation of the Kothari Commission. From the G.O. No. 33-Edn. dated 7.3.1990 extracted supra, it is apparent that the Government constituted a Pay Commission to examine the structure of emoluments and conditions of service of teaching and non-teaching staff and directed the recommendation of the State Pay Commission to be adopted for the Non-Government/Sponsored/Aided Institution and other organisations as mentioned in Annexure ‘I’ of that G.O. The intention of the Government is thus obvious and apparent that for all the educational institution which are either Non-Government/Sponsored/Aided educational institutions and other organization uniformity of scale of pay is to be implemented. 51. Annexure ‘I’ to G.O. No. 33-Edn. (B), lists certain organisations. The employees of those orgnisations are entitled to fixation of pay in the revised scales. Clause (viii) reads as under :- Recognised Non-Government Sponsored/Aided voluntary organizations under the administrative control of Education Department.” 52. The institution in question is a Non-Government sponsored institution. It is under the administrative control of the Education Department. The Rules for Management of recognised Non-Government institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 are applicable to the institution in question. Note under Rule 28 makes the position clear that “an institution receiving recording financial assistance in any shape or form from the State Government either for maintenance or for payment of salary and or allowances of teachers and/or other employees thereof, shall be treated as an aided institutions for the purpose of this Rules”. The institution in question is receiving D.A. and therefore the Management Rules, 1969 are applicable to the institution in question. The institution is thus under administrative control of Education Department. For that reason, it has to be held that the petitioners fall within the definition of employee in Clause 2(e) and are entitled to the benefit of the pay scales prescribed in G.O. No. 33-Edn (8) dated 7.3.90. 53. If the contention of Mr. The institution is thus under administrative control of Education Department. For that reason, it has to be held that the petitioners fall within the definition of employee in Clause 2(e) and are entitled to the benefit of the pay scales prescribed in G.O. No. 33-Edn (8) dated 7.3.90. 53. If the contention of Mr. Paul is to be accepted, then also the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment in Frank Anthony’s case (cited supra) would apply and similar directions as issued in that case, would have to be issued in the instant case as well viz., to direct the State respondents to enforce the fixation of pay in respect of the respondent-institution on pay with the Government aided institution. POINT NO. III. 54. As to the nature of relief to be granted, it must be stated that the school authorities in the instant case have followed the recommendations of the Pay Commission upto the Second Pay Commission. The grievance of the petitioners is also that the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission have not been followed in their entirety. The respondents management have inserted that "the salary and allowances received by the Staff of the school are not less advantages than those of their counterparts in schools to which the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission are applicable." In answer to the petitioners allegations of anomaly or discrimination in the matter of fixation of pay scale in the respondent-institution the school authorities while denying the said allegations have stated that the petitioners have instead upon payment of increment according to the method suggested by them. The system suggested by the petitioners was that the total emoluments be increased not by increasing the basis as suggested by the school authorities but by paying the higher scales after adding the increment to the basic amount. Comparative charts of the method of increments offered by the school and the method suggested by the teachers has been annexed to the writ petition being Annexure ‘J’. 55. In the view that I have taken in the matter as above, I do not propose to go into the question of disparity in wages in the institution or the anomalies and discrimination alleged with respect to fixation of pay scales in the respondent-institution. In my view, the matter can adequately and appropriately be considered by the State authorities while enforcing the recommendations of the Pay Commission. In my view, the matter can adequately and appropriately be considered by the State authorities while enforcing the recommendations of the Pay Commission. The anomalies, if any, can also be rectified by the said authorities. 56. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with directions as under :- (i) The Director of School Education, respondent No. 2 herein shall enforce the parity in payment to the petitioners in pay scales and D.A. on par with the Government aided institution and for that purpose the Director shall Issue appropriate directions to the respondents, fixing the pay scales and D.A. payable to the teachers and also the date from which the said pay scale shall be applicable. Consequently, if there arc any arrears due and payable to the teachers based upon the fixation made by the Director, the respondent management shall pay the same. (ii) The Director shall also consider whether there has been any discrimination or anomalies in the fixation of pay scales of the teachers by the respondent management with respect to the teaching staff in the said institution and if in the opinion of the Director any such anomalies required to be rectified appropriate directions shall be issued by the Director in that behalf to the respondent management. It need only be clarified that the above exercise shall be completed by the Director within a period of 6(six) months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. It is further clarified that it shall be open to the Director to cause an enquiry to be made in this behalf by any of its Gazetted Staff and based thereon, it shall be open to the Director to pass orders fixing the basic pay, scales and D.A., in respect of the teaching staff of the respondent institution as also the date from which the same is liable to be implemented. The scales of pay and D.A. shall, however, be on par with the Government aided institution. In any such enquiry to be conducted, the management of the respondent-institution, the teachers of the said institution, and such other person/authority as to the Director shall seem appropriate, shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter with liberty to place such evidence-on-record upon which they rely. There shall be no order as to costs.