Judgment Vikramaditya Prasad, J.-All these three writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as the substantial question to be answered in these writ applications is the same. 2. The substantial question is whether the Schools, which are managed by a Managing Committee comprising of the Senior Officers of the Mines of BCCL in their respective areas and were given grant in-aid by the BCCL. besides in some cases the Schools were also provided with Furniture etc. and also buildings, though they are raised by the BCCL and when there was an agreement (Annexure-9 of CWJC No. 321/99R) between the BCCL and R.C.M.S. to provide for a pay scale to the Teachers can BCCL be directed to grant a regular scale of pay to the Teachers of such Schools which were imparting education to the children of the employees of BCCL. 3. The relevant portion of Annexure-9 (supra) reads as follows : "RCMS representatives indicated that salary of Teachers of Primary Schools run through Managing Committee is lower than the teachers of State Government. This needs consideration by the management of B.C.C.L. It was agreed that with regard to such existing schools to which grant are already being given by B.C.C.L., the grants would be suitably enhanced to enable the managing committee of these schools to pay existing teachers same salary as being paid to teachers under Education Deptt. Government of Bihar." 4. The petitioners-teachers are being paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 750/(Primary Teacher), Rs. 1050/- (Middle School) which were subsequently raised to Rs. 850/- and 1200/- respectively per month. These are not the scales of pay but a consolidated salary. The petitioners of CWJC No. 321/99R are the teachers of Upper Primary School, that of CWJC No. 2600/2000R are the teachers of Upper Primary School and that of CWJC No. 2226/2000R are the teachers of Middle School. The buildings and furniture of these Schools are of B.C.C.L. Undisputedly, the offices of the different mines of the B.C.C.L., in which these schools were operating, consisted of Senior Officials of the Mines, Teachers of the Schools and representatives of the Trade Unions. The buildings and furniture of these Schools are of B.C.C.L. Undisputedly, the offices of the different mines of the B.C.C.L., in which these schools were operating, consisted of Senior Officials of the Mines, Teachers of the Schools and representatives of the Trade Unions. The schools were imparting education to the children of the employees of the mines under the control of B.C.C.L. The petitioners were also given the facilities of the Medical Treatment at the Hospitals of B.C.C.L, vide Annexure-4 of CWJC No. 321/99R and they were referred to Central Hospital and their status were related to the Colliery to which this Scheme was related. 5. The answering respondents stated in their counter-affidavits that there are some schools aided by them and there are certain schools, which are also being aided prior to their coming into existence. But grant-in-aid to such schools does not create any relationship of employer and employee. Since the grant-in-aid were made in order to see that such grants were properly utilized, the management committee was constituted for different schools in different areas along with the senior officials of the Collieries, some Trade Unions and even any staff including the Headmaster as the Members of the Managing Committee. If the senior personnel of the BCCL. became the Chairman/President of the Managing Committee, it did not change the legal position materially. No appointment letter to any of the petitioners has been issued by BCCL. or by any of its officers in the capacity of the officers of BCCL., rather all the letters of appointment or any departmental action has been issued by the management committees of which the officers of the Collieries were the President or Chairman. Thus, there is no relation of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondents. Consequently, no relief can be sought by them against the answering respondent. 6. The petitioners came with a reply to the counter-affidavits of the respondents and showing therein the absorption of some of their staff members. Annexure-13 is a letter issued in the year 1991 by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, BCCL., to BCCL., Katras Area, in which these petitioners have been shown to be Teachers of that school appointed on 20.10.1986 and 23.7.1987. By this annexure, the petitioners want to impress and prove that they were the appointees of BCCL. Annexure-13 is a letter issued in the year 1991 by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, BCCL., to BCCL., Katras Area, in which these petitioners have been shown to be Teachers of that school appointed on 20.10.1986 and 23.7.1987. By this annexure, the petitioners want to impress and prove that they were the appointees of BCCL. Annexure-14 is the categorization of the scheme of the BCCL., which shows that the Graduate Teachers are equated to Clerical Grade-I, Matric Trained Teachers are equated to Clerical Grade-II and Non-Matric (Trained) and Non Matric (untrained) Teachers are equated with Clerical Grade-'F' (vide Annexure-13 of CWJC No. 321/1999 R). 7. Thus, from the annexures the petitioners have tried to prove that the petitioners were appointees of BCCL. and as per their own resolutions, Annexure-9 series, the respondents are required to give them same pay scale which are made available to the Teachers of the Government Schools or to pay the scales that are made available to different categories of Clerks as they have been equated with those categories of Clerk, vide annexure-14. CWJC No. 2600 of 2000 R 8. Umesh Jha is the petitioner in this writ application. Almost similar points have been taken as they have been taken by the petitioners of CWJC No. 321/1999R. But here Annexure-1 has been filed to show that the teachers, who work in the educational institutions also come within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act. Annexure-2 is as good as the resolution of the R.C.M.S. discussed above in the earlier writ application. Annexure-3 is a letter of BCCL to all its General Managers which shows that the education was to be promoted and it speaks of bipartite agreement, which the Annexure-1 aforesaid, is based. That was issued by the Addl. Chief Personnel Manager (IR & W). Annexure-4 is a letter regarding issuance of grant-inaid. Annexure-5 is the agreement of bipartite committee in the year 1989 showing that the managing committee will consist of all the officials of BCCL. Annexure-6 is also a bipartite agreement of the year 1990 already discussed above in the earlier writ application. Annexure-7 is a letter issued by the respondents for disbursement of grant-in-aid. Annexure-5 is the agreement of bipartite committee in the year 1989 showing that the managing committee will consist of all the officials of BCCL. Annexure-6 is also a bipartite agreement of the year 1990 already discussed above in the earlier writ application. Annexure-7 is a letter issued by the respondents for disbursement of grant-in-aid. Annexure-8 is also the recommendation of the bipartite committee on education for grant-in-aid for privately managed institutions for the year 1997-98, which shows, inter-alia, that 80% of the students should be the wards of BCCL employees, 23% students belonging to SC/ST should be enrolled and such of the schools, who are taking fees from the students, the grantin-aid will stand reduced to the extent of the fees so collected. The next annexure gives the names of the schools getting grant-in-aid. Annexure-9 is a letter issued by the Agent-cum-Chairman of the Gramik Bai Vidyamandir, Kenduadih Colliery, directing the Headmaster of the said school that one Sri Ramashish Prasad Mahato should not be allowed to join. Annexure-1 issued by the General Manager (pers) of BCCL tells that the benefits of outdoor treatment in the company's dispensary will be given to the teachers but their services cannot be departmentalized as per the policy of the company. It also speaks of payment of grant-in-aid. Annexure-11 is a letter written by the Agent to the Headmasters of the schools falling in his area calling for the bio-data of the different teachers. This letter has been sought to be used in favour of the petitioners that the letter was issued by the Agent in the capacity of Agent and not in the capacity of Chairman or President of the managing committee of the School. Therefore, it is an admission that the petitioners were the employees of the BCCL. Annexure-12 is a statement with regard to the expenditure etc. against the grant-in-aid called for from the Headmaster by the Dy. Chief Manager and Annexures12/1 and 12/2 are the same as Annexure12. Annexure-13 shows the chart of the number of schools of different categories and the number of teachers working in different colliery areas. Annexure-14 is a letter sent to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Management Committee to which he belongs. Annexure-15 series are the instruction-notes of the Block Education Extension Officer, which recommends the Government that this school can be taken over. Annexure-14 is a letter sent to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Management Committee to which he belongs. Annexure-15 series are the instruction-notes of the Block Education Extension Officer, which recommends the Government that this school can be taken over. Annexure-16 is a letter of the State Bank which states that the current account is maintained by it in the name of the Managing Committee and Annexure-17 is the pay-slip. CWJC No. 2226 of 2000R 9. The petitioners in this writ application, besides the BCCL through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director etc., have also made the State of Bihar and the Secretary, Department of Education Government of Bihar, Patna, as party-respondents. According to these petitioners, the BCCL is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The BCCL allotted 25.87 decimals of land in the year 1978 in the village Kishalpur for construction and running of Middle School and the management of BCCL also constructed the building of the school and named it Ram Kenali Middle School. This was one of the welfare measures which requires it to run educational institutions in order to provide free education to the wards of the employees as well as to the wards of other Government agencies who have their offices or establishments in the colliery locality. Time to time the BCCL came out with a policy guidelines and it decided to establish one Primary School in each colliery and it was also agreed that grant-inaid was to be enhanced suitably to enable the Managing Committee of the Schools to pay the existing teachers same salary as being paid to the teachers of the Education Department (this fact is not supported from Annexure-1). The building of Ram Kenali Middle School was extended by the BCCL in the year 1989-90 and the school was named as Ram Kenali Middle-cum-High School. The managing committee of the said school has to be chaired by the Project Officer of the colliery and the Superintendent of the Colliery is the Secretary. The other members of the Managing Committee are the employees of the colliery and Union Representatives. The Managing Committee looks into all the aspects of the service matters of the teachers of the school i.e. of the petitioner also and they are also responsible for deciding the pay scales etc. The other members of the Managing Committee are the employees of the colliery and Union Representatives. The Managing Committee looks into all the aspects of the service matters of the teachers of the school i.e. of the petitioner also and they are also responsible for deciding the pay scales etc. The Managing Committee is the body which appointed all the Teachers for the said school and this is the Committee which is the Supreme Body, also deciding the payscales of the school, running the Bank Accounts etc. vide Annexure-2. The funds for weltare measures are received by he BCCL from CiL and the funds so received :ire allocated to various schools by the 3CCL. The BCCL allocates recurring and non-recurring expenditures through grant-in-aid. There are many private schools, like DAV, DPS, Saraswati Shishu Mandir and other private and minority institutions which also receive grant-in-aid from BCCL, but their management lies in the hands of the private institutions. The other such private schools were not under direct control of the BCCL management and they formed their own management committees. All the expenditures and withdrawals made out of the funds so allocated are jointly done with a joint signature of the Chairman and Secretary of the Managing Committee. According to the petitioners, as per Annexure5, the petitioners were appointed as Teachers and their qualifications and date of appointment specified therein. But on perusal of Annexure-5, it transpires that the Managing Committee of Ram Kenali Colliery High School issued one appointment in favour of the Nandji Yadav, though Nandji Yadav is the petitioner no. 5 in this writ application. The petitioners are being paid consolidated pay and they have never been (sic-paid?) Provided Fund and Gratuity at par with the Teachers of the State Government. The issue was raised by the RCMS, a registered Union, and in the year 1981 there was an agreement, vide Annexure-5 which has already been discussed in the earlier two writ applications. Annexures-6 & 7 are the reiteration of facts as stated above. Annexure-8 is the enhancement of the consolidated salary, which has been discussed in the earlier two writ applications. The Managing Committee of the school does not charge any fees from the students of the school, vide Annexure 9, and as per the National Coal Wage Agreement-III & V (NCWA), the clerical cadres have been granted certain scales. Annexure-8 is the enhancement of the consolidated salary, which has been discussed in the earlier two writ applications. The Managing Committee of the school does not charge any fees from the students of the school, vide Annexure 9, and as per the National Coal Wage Agreement-III & V (NCWA), the clerical cadres have been granted certain scales. It has already been mentioned in the cases of earlier two writ applications that the Teachers have been equated with the different grades of Clerks in BCCL. The petitioner's further grievance is that the salary which is being paid to the petitioners is much lower than that of the clerks as also that of the Teachers of Government Secondary Schools. As such, there is exploitation and the petitioners are getting less than the minimum wages prescribed for the workers. It has been further stated in para 27 of the writ application that a proposal had been initiated for handing over the school to the Government of Bihar in the year 1982 and the school was inspected by the Bihar Government Officials in the year 1978 for the purpose of granting recognition and to take over the management of the said school by the State of Bihar, vide Annexure-10 series. But thereafter, the management of the School issued 'No Objection' certificate to the State of Bihar in respect of taking over of the management of the school by the State Government. Thereafter several reminders and representations were filed to the State of Bihar for taking over of the management of the School, vide Annexures-10, 11 and 12. Vide Annexure-13, the matter of taking over of the school was taken up by the then State Minister for Mining & Geology, and the then Education Minister, Government of Bihar, but the matter is still pending with the Government of Bihar. It is averred in para 32 of the writ application that the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Management & Control) Act, 1980, by section 3, on the basis of an Ordinance called Bihar Secondary Education Board Act, 1976, and its second amendment, 1980, declaring the autonomous proprietary secondary schools recognized by the State Government permanently, provisionally or partially by the Board of Secondary Education, were deemed to have been taken over with effect from 2nd Oct., 1998. It is stated that the petitioners' school is not a minority school, but it falls under the category of centrally sponsored autonomous and proprietary secondary school recognized as such by the State of Bihar and for such autonomous secondary school, if the Managing Committee voluntarily makes an unconditional offer to make over the school with moveable or immoveable assets or properties owned or possessed by the school, the State Government may lay down its conditions for taking over the management and control of the School. But the matter of taking over of its management is pending with the Government of Bihar right from the year 1982. The BCCL also showed some interest of regularizing the services of the petitioner and equated their salary with that of the clerical grades, but no settlement could come either from the BCCL or from the State of Bihar. Consequently, the action of the respondents violates the Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India. In a similar case appearing in the Orissa High Court in Original Jurisdiction Case No.1 060/1996, which was decided in the year 1998, a direction was issued to the Government of Orissa for taking over the management of the school by the Government of Orissa within six months from the date of representation and pending the issue or in the event of Government not taking over the school, the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. was directed to frame an appropriate scheme for giving proper scale of pay and other financial benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff, vide Annexure-14. The Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. filed a S.L.P. No. 12197/ 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Annexure-15, gave a clear direction to the State of Orissa to take over the school. The reply of the BCCL are the same as are given in the earlier two writ applications. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit annexing Annexure-17. which is a letter issued in the 1999, informing that no official of BCCL shall be associated in any manner with the Managing Committee and as such, from then and onwards, the grant-in-aid will be given after utilization certificate received for the previous year from the respective schools and Annexure-18 is issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, which directed that the salary of the Teachers of privately managed school be paid at Rs. 2000/- per month to be effective from July, 2000, and to meet the additional expenses, it was directed that the BCCL, ECL and CCL would double the quantum of present financial assistance to the schools and the management of the schools may be allowed to effect increase in fees and also to levy development charges, admission charges, security deposits etc. Annexure19 is a letter sent by the Chief Minister's Secretariat, Jharkhand, to the Secretary, Human Resources Department, by which the recommendation of the Headmaster of the said school for taking over of this school was referred to him. 10. Only in case of Ram Kanali Middle-cum-High School, CWJC No. 2226/ 2000R, there was a recommendation by the Education Department of the Government of Bihar for taking over of the School. There was no such recommendation for other Schools involved in these writ applications. It is also a fact that the Government of Bihar had granted pay scales to the different grades of the Government Schools. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners of CWJC No. 2226/2000R has also relied upon a decision 01 the Orissa High Court rendered in Original Jurisdiction Case NO.1 060/1996 in which a clearcut direction was given by the Orissa High Court to the Government of Orissa to take over that school, Annexure-15. It transpires that the School was the only school which was left to be taken over; therefore, that direction was issued by the Orissa High Court. In the instant case, there is no such situation. 11. It is also found that in the year 2000, the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, had issued instructions, directing that the salary of the Teachers of privately managed schools be paid at Rs. 2000/- per month to be effective from July, 2000, and to meet the additional expenses, BCCL, ECL and CCL were directed to double the quantum of present financial assistance to the schools and the management of the schools be allowed to effect increase in fees and also to levy development charges, admission charges, security deposits etc., vide Annexure-18 of CWJC No. 2226/ 2000R. 12. In the aforesaid background, I now proceed to examine the claim of the petitioners and the answer of the question that has been framed above. A decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of K. Krishnamacharyulyu & Ors. VS. 12. In the aforesaid background, I now proceed to examine the claim of the petitioners and the answer of the question that has been framed above. A decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of K. Krishnamacharyulyu & Ors. VS. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Another, AIR 1998 SC 295 , has been relied upon by all the petitioners of the three writ applications. In the case relied upon by the petitioners is that there was a private college and the petitioners therein were appointed on daily wages to the post of lab. Assistants which was a non-teaching post. Their writ petition and appeal seeking equal pay had been dismissed and therefore they had preferred the S.L.P. As the Apex Court observed and said that it is not in dispute that executive instructions issued by the Government have given them the right to claim the pay scales so as to be on par with the Government employees, the Apex Court framed the questions that when there is no statutory rules issued in that behalf, and the Institution, at the relevant time, being not in receipt of any grant-in-aid, whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable? The Apex Court, taking note of long line decisions of the Apex Court itself, held that when there is an interest created by the Government in an institution to impart education, which is a fundamental right of the citizens, the teachers who teach the education gets an element of public interest in the performance of their duties. As a consequence, the element of public interest requires to regulate conditions of service of those employees on par with Government employees. In consequence, are they also not entitled to the parity of the pay scales as per the executive instructions of the Government? The Apex Court further said that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to the people to avail of the rights to education. The private institutions cater to the needs of the educational opportunities. The teachers duly appointed to a post in the private institutions are also entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as to which forum one should approach. The High Court has held that the remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act. The private institutions cater to the needs of the educational opportunities. The teachers duly appointed to a post in the private institutions are also entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as to which forum one 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, the arm of the institution, is also entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction part is very wide. 11 would be different position. if the remedy is a private law remedy. So they cannot be denied the same benefit which is available to others. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is maintainable and they are entitled to equal pay so as to be on par with Government employees under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. 13. The institution, which grant such aid, does not become ipso facto the owner of that school and by becoming the Chairman/Secretary/President etc. of the Managing Committee of such schools, no relation or contract directly accrues between the institution which grants aid and the employee of that particular institution (in the present case, the schools), which is granted such aid or if some of the officials of grantor of the aid become the Chairman and Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school, then also this relation is not established and the relation between the employer and employee rests between the Managing Committee of the School and the employees of the School and so the President/Chairman, notwithstanding their also being the officials of the BCCL, do not become the employer. But it has been evidenced that some appointment letters were issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (Annexure-13, supra). 14. But the fact is that the schools were opened, after opening of mines, for the welfare of the wards of the employees of the mines. Some schools were functional, such as Ram Kanali Middle School, even prior' to the date of the mines being operational in that area. 14. But the fact is that the schools were opened, after opening of mines, for the welfare of the wards of the employees of the mines. Some schools were functional, such as Ram Kanali Middle School, even prior' to the date of the mines being operational in that area. So, these schools were practically aided for the benefit of the wards of the employees of the BCCL and, therefore, the employees of these institutions were serving their interests and if the interest of BCCL being a State were being served, it means that the public interest were being served by these employees i.e. the petitioners in the aforesaid form. So even the management of the School Committees is not itself BBCL, but since through these schools the public interest of the State, i.e. BCCL, is served, then the BCCL is bound to implement the mandate as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. 15. The question would be as to how it will be done? One Annexure I would like to refer, i.e. Annexure-2 to CWJC No. 2600/2000R, which is bipartite agreement. It is an agreement entered into between RCMS representatives and the management of the BCCL, which reads thus : "R.C.M.S. representatives indicated that salary of teachers of Primary Schools run through Managing Committee is lower than the teacher of State Government. This needs consideration by the management of BCCL it was agreed that with regard to such existing schools to which grant are already being given by BCCL, the grants would be slightly enhanced to enable the Managing Committee of these schools to pay existing teachers same salary as being paid to such teachers under Education Department, Government of Bihar." This was the resolution of the year 1981 and was circulated by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (IR) and the Annexure in its clause 7 reports the same thing. When an agreement is there and such matter has been considered, then it was the duty of the BCCL to respect the agreement and to implement it. Though such an agreement was entered into in the year 1981, yet it appears that till now it has not been implemented. Though it appears that as per Annexure-18 of CWJC No. 2226/ 2000R, the salary of the teachers has been fixed at Rs. 2000/- in the year 2001, but it is also not sufficient. Though such an agreement was entered into in the year 1981, yet it appears that till now it has not been implemented. Though it appears that as per Annexure-18 of CWJC No. 2226/ 2000R, the salary of the teachers has been fixed at Rs. 2000/- in the year 2001, but it is also not sufficient. Rather it is in conflict with the premise of equal payment as is given to the teachers of the Government schools. This consolidated sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to a teacher in these hard days virtually converts them to 'Baggers' and amounts to a gross exploitation and is a very paltry sum and even it does not conform to the minimum wages paid to the skilled labourers and a teacher cannot be equated with a labour skilled or unskilled for the simple mason that they are the persons who are fighting with illiteracy and deserve most respectful position in the society and such a position cannot come unless they are paid a wages that makes them survive with some degree of dignity. Therefore, if for some reasons, BCCL is unable to give salary equal to that of the teachers of Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand), then in that circumstances, the case of the teachers having been equated with the different categories of Clerks as per the Annexure 9 of CWJC No. 321 of 1999R, the scales that are being given to those categories of Clerks should be made available to the petitioners of these cases, after categorizing them with different cadres of Clerks with whom they can be equated as per their stand (Annexure-9 aforesaid), i.e. either of the two has to be done i.e. either they have to be paid the salary admissible to the teachers of the schools of the Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand, or to be paid at the rate at which the clerks of its different grades are being paid with whom BCCL equates its teachers, but only a consolidated pay cannot be allowed to be paid. 16. 16. Thus, the substantial question framed earlier is answered in the following ways: The BCCL being a State is bound to implement the provisions of the Constitution and in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, they are liable to pay a scale to the Teachers of the Schools aided by them and also the Managing Committee of which actually comprises of their officers, a scale which is payable to the cadres of the clerks of the BCCL to which the teachers are equatable. 17. In the result, it is ordered that the pay scale as is given to the different equatable cadres of clerk of the BCCL should be made available to the petitioners and other teachers of the petitioners' schools with effect from the date of this order, with all other consequential benefits, like provident fund etc. These directions must be implemented by the answering respondents within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. So far the directions to the State of Jharkhand to take over the Ramkanali School is concerned, no order is passed in this regard. 18. With the aforesaid observations/directions, these writ applications are allowed.