Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The writ petitioners 1 and 2 herein pray for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Chief Educational Officer, the second respondent herein in his office proceedings O.Mu. No. 2728/E1/93 dated 15-2-1993, quash the same and direct the respondents to disburse the salary due to the petitioners for the period from 1-6-1992 to 31-12-1992. Heard Ms. J. Anandavalli, learned counsel for Mr. P. Ananthakrishnan Nair appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. K. Elango. Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. The factual matrix could be summarised. Late K. K. Paraswantha Nainar established an aided primary school at Vengaram Village, Vanthavashi Taluk during 1951. While the said founder was continuing as Manager-cum-Correspondent during 1976 he had expressed his willingness to hand over the School to the Panchayat Union or the Government and the matter was under correspondence. The said Paraswantha Nainar passed away on 22-11-1979. After his demise the school was administered by the respondents 3 and 4. The District Educational Officer was managing the school through the Assistant Educational Officer and he was drawing the salary of the teaching staff and making payments directly to them in the absence of the Manager. However, the school was not functioning on 1-6-1992 due to the parents not sending their children en masse demanding opening of a new Panchayat Union Primary School in lieu of the existing aided Primary School. The then Headmaster Mr. A. Banu died on 7-8-1992. But the writ petitioners herein were as the Secondary Grade School Assistant and were working till 30-12-1992 in the said school. The School was not functioning in a building of its own nor it had owned a land. The School was functioning in a dilapidated building owned by the Panchayat Union at free of cost and proposals were submitted to take over the School of the first respondent.The Director of the Elementary Education by his proceedings dated 3-4-1990 ordered for take over of the school. The school also could not be treated as defunct by withdrawing the recognition in the absence of the Manager. The school also could not be treated as defunct by withdrawing the recognition in the absence of the Manager. With a view to protect the welfare of the children and the Teachers of the School, necessary steps were taken for opening of a new Panchayat Union Primary School in the village and thereafter the recognition of the aided school was withdrawn. The School started functioning from 27-11-1992 in the newly constructed building and consequently the old aided Primary School became defunct. The teachers who have been employed in the said aided school after following the procedure prescribed were redeployed and absorbed in other schools with effect from 31-12-1992 in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules and as per the directions of this Court made in W.P. No. 7116 of 1990 dated 19-6-1991. Subsequently permanent buildings were built in the said Village. For certain reasons, the public of Vangaram stopped their children en masse from attending the school with effect from 16-1-1992 onwards which led to the opening of a new Panchayat Union School in the village with effect 27-11-1992. As a result of which the Aided Primary School became defunct and the two teachers who are the petitioners herein were absorbed in other needy schools with effect from 31-12-1992 with their consent. The school did not function as there were no students. The petitioners were sitting idle and they did not do any work, nor there is anything to show that they were attending the school during the relevant period. Teaching grant is payable on the basis of average attendance of pupil during the month of August or the concerned academic Year and the same teacher-pupil ratio will exist till the end of the July next Year. Consequent to the non-functioning of the aided primary school, due to absence of pupil, the school did not function between 1-6-1992 to 30-12-1992. For the said period the petitioners claim salary and seek for the issue of a writ of mandamus.Per contra, the respondents contend that the petitioners are not entitled for payment of salary, nor the school is entitled for disbursement of teaching grant for the said period. For the said period the petitioners claim salary and seek for the issue of a writ of mandamus.Per contra, the respondents contend that the petitioners are not entitled for payment of salary, nor the school is entitled for disbursement of teaching grant for the said period. None of the respondents are responsible, nor it is the responsibility of the Government to pay the salary for the teachers who did not work and in respect of a school where there were no children and there is no warrant or justification to disburse the salary for the said period namely 1-6-1992 to 30-12-1992. The only question that arise for consideration in this writ petition is : Whether for the period 1-6-1992 to 30-12-1992, the petitioners are entitled for teaching grant and payment of emoluments ? Concedingly the school did not function during the said period and no children attended the school. The school building also collapsed. There was no order sanctioning the grant for the said period. Further for the past several years without there being a Manager of the Aided School the petitioners claim that they were employed. Further there was no Manager in the Aided School since 1979 onwards. The School was defunct and consequently no question of paying teaching grant for a defunct school arise. Such a contention has been raised by the respondents. Per contra, Ms. J. Anandavalli, learned counsel for the writ petitioners vehemently contended that the teachers were attending the school and that they are entitled for payment of grant. Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate rightly contended that the School was not functioning during the relevant period and when the teachers have not discharged the duties, the school is not entitled for grant, much less teaching grant for the said period and therefore the petitioner are not entitled to the relief prayed for. The defunct school was governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973. Factually the school became defunct and the school did not function during the material period as no pupil attended the school. En masse all the parents sent their children to some other school. As the school became defunct for various other reasons including the reasons which were beyond the control of the management of the Private School. Factually the school became defunct and the school did not function during the material period as no pupil attended the school. En masse all the parents sent their children to some other school. As the school became defunct for various other reasons including the reasons which were beyond the control of the management of the Private School. There is no management for take over also in terms of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 in the present case as there was no manager or management for the school in question. Nor there were pupil attending the school.Even though there was an application for taking over the management, but the same did not fructify, nor the Government had taken over the school by which taking over alone the liability to pay salary for the petitioners herein would have arisen. The aided school will be entitled for teaching/staff grant throughout the financial Year or a part of the Year if it works and it shall not be entitled for a grant if for any portion of it did not work. Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 which is relevant prescribes notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force or any decree or order or authority no private school shall only on the ground of having been granted recognition under this Act, be entitled to any grant or other financial assistance from the Government. However, the Government may subject to availability of funds and subject to the norms and conditions specified in the Grant in aid code of the Tamil Nadu Educational Department or such rules or notifications or orders as may be fixed and subject to such other conditions as may be prescribed pay grant to the School. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 which is relevant runs thus :- "The Government may withhold permanently or for any specified period the whole or part of any grant referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of any private school. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 which is relevant runs thus :- "The Government may withhold permanently or for any specified period the whole or part of any grant referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of any private school. (i) which does not comply with any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made or directions issued thereunder in so far as such provisions, rules or directions are applicable to such private school, or (ii) in respect of which the pay and allowance payable to any teacher or other persons employed in such private school are not paid to such teacher or other person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or(iii) which contravenes or fails to comply with any such conditions as may be prescribed." In the light of the said provision, it is clear that the Government may withhold permanently or for a specified period any grant including the teaching grant in respect of any private school which fails to comply with any such provisions of the Act or the Rules or the directions issued. This is an implied provision in respect of a school which fails to perform such direction or order issued under the Act. Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 provides for payment of grants from other funds. The said rule makes it clear that when a recognition of the school had been withdrawn it shall not be entitled to any grant for the period of such withdrawal of recognition. In terms of the grant in aid code unless the school functions, the school is not entitled for teaching grant. In the present case concedingly the school did not function at all and the writ petitioners did not work at all during the said period. It is a case of no work, no pay. The petitioners also on their part had contributed for the situation to a certain extent. However they have been redeployed in some other needy school with continuity of service and with other benefit. For the period of which the school was defunct, due to various reasons including the fact that no pupil attended the school, the petitioners did not discharge their duty at all and the school became defunct. The reasons may be ever so many with which we are not concerned. For the period of which the school was defunct, due to various reasons including the fact that no pupil attended the school, the petitioners did not discharge their duty at all and the school became defunct. The reasons may be ever so many with which we are not concerned. The petitioners did not work and did not discharge the duties at all, nor there is evidence to show that they were attending the school waiting for the pupil. The school children ceased to attend the school much prior to the said period.There is no relationship of employer and employee between the first respondent and the petitioners so as to fasten liability on the respondents if for no fault of the petitioners they were prevented from working or they were denied of their employment by the respondents. The respondents obligation is to sanction teaching grant if a school and the teachers discharge their functions. If the school is defunct, then the respondents are not expected, nor there is an obligation to pay the teachers as the relationship between the respondents and the petitioners are not that of employer and employee. Merely because privileges have been afforded by way of grant of various benefits, the petitioners cannot claim that they are the employees under the respondents. There is no justification at all for the petitioners to claim wages from the respondents as on the facts, the school was defunct and there was no management, none attended the school and the respondents could not be compelled to sanction or pay the teaching grant for the relevant period. Taking into consideration of the entire facts, the petitioners have already been redeployed which itself has already given relief to a greater extent to the petitioners, the school in which the petitioners were working was defunct and naturally for a defunct school the school management is not entitled for a grant. The relief prayed for by the petitioners in this writ petition cannot be granted. Consequently, the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to pay the salary for the period they did not work and for the period the school did not function. As seen from the impugned order it is the responsibility of the management of the school to pay its employees and the petitioners have to seek their remedies against the employer for non payment of salary if at all. As seen from the impugned order it is the responsibility of the management of the school to pay its employees and the petitioners have to seek their remedies against the employer for non payment of salary if at all. There was no management at all for several years. The petitioners also cannot claim the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee relationship with the respondents.In the circumstances, no case has been made out for interference. The impugned order is not liable to be quashed and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.