RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The five petitioners were working as peons in different colleges against sanctioned posts. Petitioner No. 1 Ganga Sagar Tiwari was appointed in Jubali, Sanskrit College, Balia on 15-11-1976, petitioner No. 2 Ram Badan Singh was appointed on 1-11-76 in Shri Sidheshwar Nath Adarsh Sanskrit Pathshala Kuti Kotwa Narainpur, District Ballia, petitioner No. 3 Swami Nath appointed on 12-7-74 in Shri Amar Sanskrit Vidyalaya Khajuri, District Ballia, petitioner No. 4 Sheo Narain was appointed with effect from 1-4-1989 in Chiteshwar Nath Sanskrit Pathshala Chit Baragaon, District Ballia and Petitioner No. 5 Ram Adhar Ram was appointed in Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya Kishore Chetan on 1-12-1978. 3. All institutions in which the petitioners are working as peons, are affiliated to Shri Sampurna Nand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi, are duly recognized and receive grants-in-aid for payment of salaries to teachers and other employees from the State Government. 4. By means of this writ petition the petitioners are seeking relief of equal pay for equal work. It is alleged that the petitioners were being paid an amount of Rs. 516 per year each towards maintenance grant from the State Government under a G. O. dated 8-3-1983, which has been appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This maintenance grant to the petitioner was stopped with effect from March, 1987. 5. Counsel for the respondents opposes the petition solely on the ground that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts as in IV category institution and the posts of peon was not sanctioned under the G. O. dated 10-2-1987, which is appended as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter- affidavit. 6. Rebutting the arguments, Counsel for the petitioners states that they were being paid maintenance grant of Rs. 516 per year by the State Government, which in itself proves that the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned post, otherwise they would not have been paid the maintenance from the State Exchequer. He further submits that the G. O. dated 10-2-87 does not authorize the respondents to stop the payment of the maintenance grant as the petitioners are still continuing in service and their services have not been terminated. He submits that all of a sudden the payment of maintenance grant was stopped without any reason w. e. f. March 1987, which is illegal. He submits that all of a sudden the payment of maintenance grant was stopped without any reason w. e. f. March 1987, which is illegal. They also moved representations to the Government for redressal of their grievance. 7. It is contended that the facts of the present case are similar to the controversy in The Chandigarh Administration and others v. Mrs. Rajvanshi and others, J. T. 2000 (1) SC 159. The Apex Court in this case held that the teachers of the institutions established under permission of competent authority and receiving grant-in-aid could not be denied benefit of grant-in-aid and parity of pay scale as is being paid to their counterparts in the privately managed Government aided schools. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is submitted that the petitioners are Class-IV employees of the institutions which are duly recognized in the list of the institutions getting grant-in-aid from the State Government and as such they are entitled to payment for equal pay for equal work vis-a-vis those of their counterparts in Government Aided Junior High Schools, High Schools, Intermediate Colleges and Degree Colleges from the date of their respective appointments. 8. It is contended that the petitioners are doing same work as is being done by their counterparts in "ka" category institutions and are being discriminated with similarly situated institution in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. I have perused the same. 10. The petitioners are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They have raised disputed questions of fact in this writ petition, which cannot be adjudicated except by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The proper forum for adjudication of dispute is labour Court under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. This is not a fit case for exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it requires adjudication of disputed questions of fact. In these circumstances it would be proper to relegate the petitioners to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to them before the labour Court as has been settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. 11. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .