A. K. MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THE prayers made out in the instant writ petition are as follows:-a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing and/or commanding the respondents to release the petitioner's all retirement benefit for Rs. 1,70,488. 50 on account of Gratuity, rs. 11,364. 00 on account of arrear salary and also balance amount of P. F. and E. P. F. of the petitioner + 18% interest per annum and thereby make the Rule absolute. b) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit all the original relevant papers and documents relating to the case before the Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the case, so that conscionable justice may be done. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of Scottish church Collegiate School and there is no dispute also that he joined the school on 1st September, 1960 and superannuated from service on 1st October, 1997. The petitioner admittedly possessed qualification of B. Sc. (Bio-Science) and it is also admitted that the petitioner improved his educational qualification by securing degrees in B. Sc. (Special Rons.) in Zoology in the year 1964, B. T. in the year 1967 and lastly he obtained the degree in M. A. (Islamic History) in the year 1972. In support of his claim he has craved for leave to produce those certificates at the time of hearing. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of this writ petition stated that after obtaining the aforesaid higher qualification, the school authority time to time allowed the petitioner incremental benefits for his higher qualification with due approval of the authority concerned. The petitioner also claimed that he was granted M. A. scale of pay by the school authority and he was also allowed benefit to be continued till his retirement without any condition or stipulation. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner when he joined the said school at that time the said school had its own scale of pay. The petitioner also averred in the writ petition that in the year 1990 the school introduced a new scale of pay for the employees of the school in terms of Notification No. 33-Edn. (B) dated 7th March, 1990 issued by the Education Department. The petitioner also averred in the writ petition that in the year 1990 the school introduced a new scale of pay for the employees of the school in terms of Notification No. 33-Edn. (B) dated 7th March, 1990 issued by the Education Department. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner Government of West Bengal followed the Pay Commission's recommendation and at that point of time school authority also resolved for introduction of Gratuity rules for the employess. That is to say, according the petitioner, following pay Commission's recommendation the Government of West Bengal issued Circular No. 33-Edn. (B) dated 7th March, 1990 and the petitioner was allowed the said revised scale of pay notionally effective from 1st January, 1986 and as option was sought for from the employees of the school within a stipulated period the petitioner also submitted option and got the revised pay scale. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner after enjoying the said revised scale the petitioner retired w. e. f. 01. 10. 1997 at the age of 60 years after serving the school for long 37 years. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the school authorities unambiguously decided that all the employees of the school are elgible to enjoy the benefit of Provident Fund, E. P. F. and Gratuity etc. in terms of Ropa-98 and accordingly the school authority executed the said decision in all respect for all the employees of the school. ( 7 ) ON 08. 07. 1998 the petitioner submitted duly filled up form for employees Pension Scheme before the Employees Provident Fund authority. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the said form as being marked as Annexure-P2. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, the Assistant Commissioner of the said E. P. F. organisation being Mem No. Ex-Pen. 1/w. B. /19667/476 (1) dated 07. 12. 1998 asked the school authority to furnish certain papers and documents as stated in the memo before him which are very much required for releasing the Employees' Provident Fund amount of the petitioner under Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and the said memo under dated 07. 12. 1998 was forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner has annexed a copy of the said Memo being Annexure-P3. ( 9 ) THE petitioner after receiving the said Memo dated 07. 12. 1998 through a letter dated 05. 05. 12. 1998 was forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner has annexed a copy of the said Memo being Annexure-P3. ( 9 ) THE petitioner after receiving the said Memo dated 07. 12. 1998 through a letter dated 05. 05. 1999 duly requested the school authority for sending those papers and documents as stated in the said Memo before the E. P. F. organisation which is necessary for grant of employees' Provident Fund. The petitioner annexed xerox copy of the said letter dated 05. 05. 1999 as Annexure-P4. ( 10 ) THE petitioner issued reminder through a letter dated 23. 08. 1999 and the petitioner also annexed the said letter as annexure-P5. ( 11 ) IN response to the said reminder dated 23. 08. 1999 the respondent No. 7, the Secretary, Board of Trustee through his letter dated 06. 09. 1999 informed the petitioner that he will discuss the matter for settlement of E. P. F. claim and accordingly the petitioner on 10. 12. 1999 met the respondent No. 7 and discussed the matter in the school office for getting the E. P. F. claim but nothing developed. The petitioner has also annexed the said letters dated 06. 09. 1999 and 22. 02. 2000 collectively as Annexure-P6. ( 12 ) THE petitioner issued further letters dated 18. 07. 2001 and requested the school authority praying for his Provident Fund money but they did not pay any heed to the school authority. ( 13 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner issued a demand notice dated 05. 11. 2001 and demanded all his service benefits and the petitioner served the said demand notice to the Head Master of the school but the same was refused by the school authority. The Head Master of the school through a letter dated 29. 11. 2001 denied all the benefits and claims of the petitioner. On the contrary it was written in the said letter to the petitioner by the Head Master that the petitioner has received excess amount of salary wrongly which he was not entitled and the Head Master asked the petitioner to refund the same. Then the petitioner through his learned advocate issued a demand for justice. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner after his retirement he has been paid only Rs. 60,000 on account of Gratuity and according to him the total Gratuity amount comes to the tune of Rs. 2,30,488. Then the petitioner through his learned advocate issued a demand for justice. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner after his retirement he has been paid only Rs. 60,000 on account of Gratuity and according to him the total Gratuity amount comes to the tune of Rs. 2,30,488. An amount of Rs. 22,725 out of his arrear salary from April 1997 to July 1997 was said to be wrongly paid to him absence of his such option. The petitioner stated that he is also entitled Rs. 2,08,528. 27 only against the petitioner's total Provident Fund account. The petitioner has retired on 01. 10. 1997 as Assistant Teacher of the said school but till today the petitioner has not been cleared out his dues. According to the petitioner he is entitled to get the superannuation benefits payable by the school which are as follows :-i) On account of Gratuity the balance which the petitioner is entitled is a sum of Rs. 1,70,488. 50. ii) On account of arrear salary the petitioner is entitled to the balance amount, a sum of Rs. 11,364. 00. iii) On account of P. P. and E. P. F. petitioner is entitled to the balance amount of accumulated and or accrued sum as on the date of retirement. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY the petitioner filed the instant writ petition with the above claim. ( 16 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 6 affidavit-in-opposition was filed and the said affidavit was affirmed by the Assistant Head Master of the school concerned. In the said opposition the respondent No. 6 took a stand that no writ lies against the managing committee of the respondent school as the writ petition does not involve any public law element between the petitioner and the concerned respondents. The petitioner cannot be said to have derived any legal right to obtain a writ. The petitioner must have legal right and on the legitimate expectation the petitioner cannot maintain this writ. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to the respondent No. 6 the school is guided by the special Rules. New pay scale for Teachers is not applicable for the d. A. getting minority institutions like the Scottish Church Collegiate school. The petitioner must have legal right and on the legitimate expectation the petitioner cannot maintain this writ. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to the respondent No. 6 the school is guided by the special Rules. New pay scale for Teachers is not applicable for the d. A. getting minority institutions like the Scottish Church Collegiate school. From Annexure-I of the 'ropa-98'it is clear that it has got its application to the Teachers and non-teaching staff of : i) State Government sponsored or aided Primary Schools/junior basic Schools (including Pre-Basic Schools); ii) State Government sponsored or aided Junior High/high schools/higher Secondary Schools upto Class-XII (including junior High/high and Senior Madrasah ; iii) State Government sponsored aided training institutes for primary Teachers; iv) Employees of the District School Board, Darjeeling (Hill Areas)/district Primary School Councils/siliguri Sub-Divisional primary School Council. ( 18 ) IN the said opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 6 it has been stated that vide 52nd meeting of the Council of Scottish Church college and Collegiate School dated December 6, 1973 the petitioner was sanctioned usual increment of Rs. 20 per month for the postgraduate degree w. e. f. the date of production of marksheets. , ( 19 ) IN the opposition copy of the said resolution has been annexed as Annexure-D2. ( 20 ) ACCORDING to the opposition the benefit of M. A. scale of pay and benefit of G. D. A. Consequential to such scale, which was allowed to the petitioner and admittedly continued till his retirement, was done wrongfully and due to inadvertance by virtue of clerical mistakes. ( 21 ) THE Head Master of the school through his letter dated 29. 11. 2001 addressed to the petitioner informed him inter alia that the school committee did not take any decision to place the petitioner in the Social Science group although to he was wrongly paid salary according to the master degree scale. ( 22 ) IN the opposition it was further stated that this grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner was made through clerical error and mistake. ( 23 ) THE respondent No. 6 in the opposition stated that sometime in the year 1991 the school committee resolved to introduce the new scale of pay for the employees of the school with an eye to notification No. 33-Edn. ( 23 ) THE respondent No. 6 in the opposition stated that sometime in the year 1991 the school committee resolved to introduce the new scale of pay for the employees of the school with an eye to notification No. 33-Edn. (B) dated 7th March, 1990 issued by the education Department, Government of West Bengal by adopting the pay Commission's recommendation. The Managing Committee of the School (Secondary Education) through a resolution dated 11. 02. 1991 introduced revised Gratuity Scheme by resolving that only those staff members who had opted to come over to the revised scale of pay be allowed to enjoy the benefits of the revised Gratuity scheme. The copy of the said resolution has been annexed to the opposition being Annexure-D3. ( 24 ) ACCORDING to the respondent No. 6 the petitioner however, failed to mention as regards exercise of such option in the new scale introduced w. e. f. 01. 04. 1997 as he has mentioned about the option exercised by him with regard to the previous scale of pay of the school. ( 25 ) IT has further been stated in the opposition that as petitioner failed to exercise option the new pay scale w. e. f. 01. 04. 1997 is not applicable in his case and he cannot claim any arrear salary. ( 26 ) IT has further been stated in the opposition that Rs. 22,728/-for the period from April, 1997 to July 1997 was wrongfully paid to him in the absence of such option. ( 27 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 6 it has been stated that ropa-98 is applicable in case of Government aided/sponsored schools only and not in case of D. A. getting schools. As a D. A. getting school the Scottish Church Collegiate School has its own scale of pay and also its own gratuity rules. The school managing committee has got right to add or amend the rules of the school. ( 28 ) IT has been stated in the opposition that the petitioner was paid Rs. 2,08,528. 27 paisa through one cross cheque No. 474194 dated 01. 10. 1997 drawn on the State Bank of India on the very same date of his retirement i. e. 30. 09. 1997. ( 28 ) IT has been stated in the opposition that the petitioner was paid Rs. 2,08,528. 27 paisa through one cross cheque No. 474194 dated 01. 10. 1997 drawn on the State Bank of India on the very same date of his retirement i. e. 30. 09. 1997. In the opposition it has been stated that Total Provident Fund accumulation, both employees' and employers' share was included in the cheque amount except the provident Fund countribution between 01. 04. 1997 and 30. 09. 1997 that is to say for six months and also excepting interest due for the period from 01. 04. 1997 to 30. 09. 1997. ( 29 ) IT has been stated that at the time of the P. F. claims of the petitioner the audit for the year 1996-97 and also for the year 1997-98 were due to be completed and it was rather impossible to fully settle the claims of the petitioner until audit for the year was completed. ( 30 ) IN the opposition it was also stated that the case of the petitioner is different from other members for the following reasons: (a) He was one amongst the twelve Provident fund members/ contributors who had joined the statutory fund of Regional provident Fund Commissioner with effect from December 01, 1990. ( 31 ) HIS past accummulation was upto November, 1990 and thereafter his provident fund contribution (both shares), month by month had been deposited in the office of the Regional Provident fund Commissioner upto August, 1994. ( 32 ) IT has further been stated that the petitioner along with his. other eleven members/contributors had jointly exercised their options under Provision 27 of E. P. F. and M. P. Act 1952 to return to the Board of Trustees Fund with effect from August, 1994. ( 33 ) IN the opposition it was further stated that the past accuramulation of the petitioner and other members/contributors in Provident Fund was only transferred to Board of Trustees fund after 15 months upon granting exemption under Rule 27 of the E. P. F. and M. P. Act, 1952. ( 34 ) IT was further stated that still good amount of money as part of past accummulation is lying with the office of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner. ( 35 ) IT is stated that after retirement the petitioner was paid the sum of Rs. 2,08,528. ( 34 ) IT was further stated that still good amount of money as part of past accummulation is lying with the office of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner. ( 35 ) IT is stated that after retirement the petitioner was paid the sum of Rs. 2,08,528. 27 towards balance Provident Fund money at his credit with the Scottich Church Collegiate School Provident Fund in full and final settlement excepting Provident Fund between 01. 04,1997 and 30. 09. 1997 and interest due for the period from 01. 04. 1996 to 30. 09. 1997. ( 36 ) IN the opposition copies of such payment receipts have been annexed and marked with letter D-4. ( 37 ) IN the opposition some of such correspondences in this regard made with the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner have been annexed hereto and marked with the letter D-5 collectively. ( 38 ) IN the opposition it has been categorically stated that the petitioner was wrongfully and out of clerical mistake allowed the benefit of M. A. scale of pay and benefit G. D. A. consequential to such scale and as such the moment it could come to the notice of the management, the petitioner was asked to return back the such excess payment made to him. ( 39 ) ACCORDING to respondent No. 6 the petitioner got excess payment through clerical mistake and not as a matter of right and as such the money paid to him by mistake should be returned to the authority from whom the petitioner could get it. ( 40 ) TO this opposition the petitioner submitted reply. ( 41 ) IN the reply the petitioner reiterated his stand taken in the writ petition. ( 42 ) THE petitioner in the reply categorically stated that the writ petition is maintainable as because the school concerned is getting government grant and sanction as D. A. getting school for a long time which contains in Sl. No. 8 of rule notification No. 641-EDM (S)/ 83-3/69, dated 23. 05. 1974. According to the petitioner school concern is guided, managed and administered following the act, rules and circulars issued by the Government of West Bengal under the West bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. No. 8 of rule notification No. 641-EDM (S)/ 83-3/69, dated 23. 05. 1974. According to the petitioner school concern is guided, managed and administered following the act, rules and circulars issued by the Government of West Bengal under the West bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. ( 43 ) IT has been further stated that since it is a D. A. getting school it is getting Dearness Allowance from the Government of West bengal and the Government has got financial control over the school service from the District Inspector of Schools concerned and the school also time to time allow all the service benefits to the staffs following circulars and directions issued by the Education Directorate, government of West Bengal and the school authority cannot take any single step ignoring the Government of West Bengal and manage administer the school dehorse the rules and directions issued by the Government of West Bengal. ( 44 ) IN the instant writ petition therefore two points have arisen for decision: 1) Whether writ lies against the managing committee of a school, 2) Whether the benefits (financial) as allowed by the Government circulars or Ropa Rules are admissible to the petitioner or not. ( 45 ) INSOFAR as the maintainability of the writ petition against the managing committee if a school is concerned, reference may be drawn to the decision of a single Judge Bench of this High Court reported in 1999 CWN, Page-1134 (Brojo Buhushan Mishra v. State of west Bengal and Ors. ). The observations made in paragraph 9 of this judgment is relevant in the context and is quoted hereinbelow:"9. The said two decisions of the Supreme Court namely, Unni krishnan v. State of A. P. and Francis John v. Directorate of Education (supra) would have been sufficient to dispose of the writ petition by holding that since the school receives aid in the form of government D. A. for its teachers and thus becomes a Government aided institution it is bound to comply with the Government circulars relating to the service conditions of teachers including eligibility for higher pay scale on improving qualification, and the petitioner is therefore entitled to the relief of higher pay scale as claimed. But in the present case a question has also been raised on behalf of the contesting respondents that since the school is established and managed by the Soceity of a linguistic minority group, it is entitled to the protection of Article 30 (1) of the constitution of India and as such the Government circular regarding the admissibility of higher pay scale for teachers is not applicable to the school or to the petitioner who is a teacher of the school. This point however is completely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Frank Anthony Public School employees Association v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 31 which I have mentioned earlier. Frank Anthony Public School is a minority school in New Delhi. The said school however was not receiving any financial aid from the Government. The teachers and employees of the school lagged far behind the teachers and employees of the Government schools in the matter of pay scales and conditions of service. The Frank Anthony Public School employees Association by writ petition sought equalisation of their pay scales and conditions of service with those of teachers and employes of Government schools. Sections 8 to 12 of the Delhi school Education Act together comprise Chapter IV of that Act which deals 'terms and condtions of service of employees of recognised private schools. ' Section 109 (1) of the said Act requires that the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority. The Act also defines appropriate authority in section 2 (e) to mean inter alia in the case of a school recognised by an authority designated or sponsored by the Central government, that authority, in the case of a school recognised by the Delhi Administration, the Administrator or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, and in the case of school recognised by Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that Corporation. The proviso to section 10 (1) requires the appropriate authority to direct in writing the Managing Committee of any recognised private school to bring the scales of pay and allowances etc. The proviso to section 10 (1) requires the appropriate authority to direct in writing the Managing Committee of any recognised private school to bring the scales of pay and allowances etc. of all the employees of such schools to the level of those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appopriate authority. A further proviso to section 10 (1) contemplates withdrawal recognition if such direction is not complied with. But for section 12 the provisions of section 10 would have been applicable to a recognised minority private school, such as, the frank Anthony Public School and also in that case the teachers and employees of the school would also be entitled to the same pay scales and other benefits mentioned therein as would have been applicable to the teachers and employees of a recognised private school which were also required to be not less than those of the teachers and employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. The teachers of the frank Anthony Public School were however getting much lower salary and were enjoying lower pay scales than those who were employed in other recognised private schools or Government schools. This happened because of the existence of section 12 in chapter IV of the said Act, section 12 provides that nothing contained in the said chapter shall apply to an unaided minority school. Therefore, the beneficial provisions regarding pay scales and other service conditions which were incorporated in Chapter iv of the said Act were not made applicable to the teachers and employees of the Frank Anthony Public School which was an unaided minority school. " ( 46 ) REFERENCE may also be drawn to the decision reported in 2000 vol. (1)CHN, Page 435 (Abdul Mannan Laskar v. State of West Bengal ). This is a Division Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court. Two other celebrated judgments may be referred to in this context, one is the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 SC, Page 2178 (Unni Krishnan J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.) and other in AIR 1987 SC, Page-311 (Frank Anthony Public School Employees association v. Union of India and Ors. ). ( 47 ) REFERENCE may also be drawn to another judgment reported in 1998 (3)SCC, Page 88 (Dr. Meera Massey and Ors. v. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra and Ors. ). ( 47 ) REFERENCE may also be drawn to another judgment reported in 1998 (3)SCC, Page 88 (Dr. Meera Massey and Ors. v. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra and Ors. ). In this Judgment Hon'ble Apex Court made an exhaustive discussion regarding locus standi or standing of the petitioner. ( 48 ) LASTLY another celebrated Judgment can be referred to in this context reported in AIR 1989 SC, Page-1660 (Anand Muktha Sadguri v. V. R. Rudani ). ( 49 ) ALL these judgments in a singular voice declare that writ petition is maintainable against an institution which performs public functions and public duties. ( 50 ) NOW comes the second aspect as to whether the benefits (financial) as allowed by the Government circulars or Ropa Rules are admissible to the petitioner or not. The judgment reported in 1999 CWN, Page-1134 and the same paragraph 9 is the answer to this question where the Hon'ble Justice Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharya observed in the same tune. ( 51 ) IT is now a settled position of law that the organisations or institutions performing public functions and discharging public duties are amenable to writ jurisdiction and the minority institutions though, are covered by their own rules regarding administration but insofar as pay packet is concerned they may adopt the Governmental circulars or Governmental approach or Governmental views. In the instant case the school has accepted the Governmental views insofar as Ropa Rules are concerned and the school authorities cannot now go back upon their promises. The authorities restrained by promisary estoppel insofar as the payment to the teachers of Scottish Church collegiate School is concerned. It would be needless to encumber this judgment by referring to so many other decisions regarding locus standi or regarding promisory estoppel it will suffice also if it can be said that extension of the doctrine of promisory estoppel brings in doctrine of legitimate expectation and here on the contrary not only there was legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioner but also the petitioner was paid his actual dues which he is entitled to and now the school authority cannot go back and Dr. Meera Massey's case (supra) stands in the way. ( 52 ) ANOTHER tricky point has been taken by the respondents regarding maintainability of this writ because of the ground of delay. Meera Massey's case (supra) stands in the way. ( 52 ) ANOTHER tricky point has been taken by the respondents regarding maintainability of this writ because of the ground of delay. This aspect of delay in filing a writ petition is no longer res-integra. ( 53 ) IT is now settled that if the action is a continuous cause of action and if the petitioner can explain the delay, the writ cannot be said to be not maintainable on the ground of delay. ( 54 ) IN view of the discussions made above the writ petition is therefore allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to settle the dues of the petitioner regarding his Provident Fund, Gratuity, arrear salary and other dues (balance amount) after adjustment of the amount paid to the petitioner. Such payment is to be made to the petitioner within one month from the date of communication of this order. ( 55 ) THE writ petition is thus disposed of with above directions. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, will be given to the parties expeditiously. Petition disposed of.