( 1 ) AS in both the matters common points are involved, they are being considered by this common judgement. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner are the employees of Ashram Shala and it includes teaching as well as non-teaching staff. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government with a view to provide education in the tribal areas floated a scheme for establishing Ashram Shalas through charitable trusts/ngos and as per the scheme of the State Government 100% grant is being provided by the State Government to all Ashram Shalas. As per the petitioners, these Ashram Shalas are under the control of the State Government and its officers including from the date of registration of all ashram Shalas, the recruitment of teaching and non- teaching staff of the Ashram Shalas. The scheme of ashram Shalas provides that those students, who joined the School/shala for education are also provided residential facilities and the teachers as well as students study and reside in the School and hostel accommodation for 24 hours and the food facilities and all other auxiliaries for the purpose of staying and studying are being provided in these ashram Shalas. It is the case of the petitioners in the present petitions that all these Ashram Shalas are at par with Primary Schools run by either district Panchayat Education Committees (hereinafter referred to as district/panchayat schools) or charitable Trusts in the urban or within the rural areas (hereinafter referred to as Private Primary schools), which are being governed by the Bombay primary Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 3 ) IT is the further case of the petitioners that though the Act is not directly made applicable, practically for all purpose the Ashram Shalas are imparting education at par with District Panchayat schools and/or the Private Primary Schools run in the other areas and it is the case of the petitioners that the service conditions are also governed by Schedule-F of the Rules, which are to operate as model conditions. Therefore, the case of the petitioners in the present petitions is that the status of all Ashram Shalas in the State are 100% situated at par with the status of the Schools, may be either as that of District Panchayat Schools or other Private Primary Schools in the area. Therefore, the case of the petitioners in the present petitions is that the status of all Ashram Shalas in the State are 100% situated at par with the status of the Schools, may be either as that of District Panchayat Schools or other Private Primary Schools in the area. ( 4 ) IT appears that the State Government had formed committee known as "shri Bhagwatbhai Dave Committee" for examining grievances and also for parity of the staff of Ashram Shalas including teaching and non- teaching staff and the said Committee submitted its report and recommended for conferment of various benefits which, inter alia, included for conferring the same benefits as are being made available to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the District panchayat Schools. It appears that on 21. 1. 1986, the state Government passed the resolution of accepting the report of Bhagwatbhai Dave Committee and it was resolved to confer all the benefits as mentioned in the resolution. The said resolutions, inter alia, provides for conferring all the benefits to the employees of Ashram Shalas, which are being made available to the employees of the School run by the district Panchayat. It appears that thereafter vide resolution dated 25. 11. 1988, various benefits are conferred and Clause 12 provides for the pay-scale of the staff of the Ashram Shalas. It may be recorded that the petitioner of SCA No. 13746 of 2005 has not produced the complete resolution dated 25. 11. 1988, more particularly the Clause-12 onwards is not produced. However, the learned AGP has produced during the course of hearing and in the same reference is there to the pay-scale of not only staff of Primary School of the Ashram Shalas, but also for the staff of the Secondary Section of ashram Shala. In the Resolution dated 25. 8. 1988 only certain benefits are conferred and, therefore, the pay-scales are, vide the said resolution, placed at par with the pay-scale of the staff of the the primary schools run by the District Panchayat. ( 5 ) THE grievance in the present petitions is that though vide resolution dated 21. 1. 1986 the government had agreed to confer all benefits which are being given to the staff of Schools run by the district Panchayat Education Committee, the benefit extended vide Resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 are only for the purpose of pay-scales and other benefits are not given. 1. 1986 the government had agreed to confer all benefits which are being given to the staff of Schools run by the district Panchayat Education Committee, the benefit extended vide Resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 are only for the purpose of pay-scales and other benefits are not given. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petitions is that the staff of primary schools run by the District Panchayat Schools, are getting various additional benefits, including that of Government pension, gratuity, group insurance scheme, medical treatment allowances, leave - festival advances, etc. , which are shown in the tabular statement in the representation made by the petitioner Union to the Honble Minister for scheduled Tribe Development Department of the State government, copy whereof is produced at page 69 of the compilation of SCA No. 13746 of 2005. It appears that the petitioner did make the representation to the State Government for extending additional benefits to the staff of Ashram Shala. However, the same was not being considered. Thereafter the petitioners preferred SCA No. 11651 of 2004 and in the said petition while issuing notice it was observed by the Court that the pendency of the petition shall not preclude the respondent Authority from considering the petitioners representation and it appears that thereafter in the said petition on 17. 12. 2004, the time was also extended to decide the representation. On 14. 2. 2005, the decision is taken by the State Government upon the representation of the petitioners of SCA No. 11651 of 2004, in which it is observed by the State that the process of recruitment of Ashram Shalas staff is by the institution registered under the Bombay Public Trust act or Societies Registration Act and they are not government employees and, therefore, they would not be entitled to the benefits which are being made available to the other State Government employees namely; that of pension, gratuity, group insurance, etc. In the said decision of the State Government it is also observed that this Court (Coram: R. Balia, J " as he then was) in its common judgement dated 28. 4. 1997 in SCA No. 13666 of 1994 and allied matters, has also denied such benefits and, therefore, ultimately the decision is taken by the state Government of not accepting the demand made in the representation. 4. 1997 in SCA No. 13666 of 1994 and allied matters, has also denied such benefits and, therefore, ultimately the decision is taken by the state Government of not accepting the demand made in the representation. It appears that thereafter another petition is preferred by Mehsana " Patan jilla Ashram Shala Karmachari Sangh being SCA no. 13746 of 2005 for prayer of quashing the decision of the State Government denying the benefits and also for the prayer of a mandamus to be issued directing the respondent authority to forthwith implement the resolution dated 21. 1. 1986 and to pay all benefits as per the said resolution retrospectively. The petitioners have also prayed to direct the respondent authority to treat the employees of Ashram Shalas at par with the employees of the Schools run by Panchayat (Shikshan Samiti) and to pay all benefits which are being paid to the employees of the Schools run by Shikshan Samiti with retrospective effect. The prayers made in the SCA no. 11651 of 2004, were initially for directing the state Government to implement the resolution dated 21. 1. 1986 extending recommendation of Shri bhagwatbhai Dave Committee, but thereafter by amendment the prayer is also made to quash the order dated 14. 2. 2005 which came to be passed by the State government upon the representation decided in pursuance of the interim order passed in the said petition. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners are seeking parity for monetary benefits in all respects at par with the staff-employees of panchayat Schools run by the Education Committee of the District Panchayats. ( 6 ) HEARD Mr. Oza, learned Counsel appearing with Ms. Shah and Mr. Patel for the petitioners and Mr. Desai, learned AGP for the State Authorities. ( 7 ) IT appears that on following factual aspects there is no dispute: (a) Ashram Shalas are being registered under the scheme of the State Government for establishing primary schools with facilities in the tribal areas. (b) As per the scheme such Ashram Shalas are to be established by Charitable Trusts or the Societies. (c) 100% grant is to be provided by the State government to such NGOs for establishing Ashram shalas for maintenance and expenses of Ashram shalas. (b) As per the scheme such Ashram Shalas are to be established by Charitable Trusts or the Societies. (c) 100% grant is to be provided by the State government to such NGOs for establishing Ashram shalas for maintenance and expenses of Ashram shalas. (d) The staff of Ashram Shalas, including teaching and non-teaching are being recruited by the managements of the Charitable Trusts upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee, which comprises of representative of the School management, Government Officers and others. (e) The staff of Schools of the Panchayat are being recruited as per the Recruitment Rules/procedures by the Officers of the Panchayats. (f) In addition to the Panchayat Schools there are other Private Primary Schools run by NGOs, who are imparting education the Schools up to 7th Standard in the State. (g) The provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act in all respects are applicable to the Panchayat schools and Private Primary School. (h) The Bombay Primary Education Act is not applicable to Ashram Shalas, however, for maintenance of the service conditions, the Staff rules/service Conditions of the staff are required to be sanctioned by Ashram Shala Officer, who is an officer of the State Government and until such rules are sanctioned, conditions provided in Schedule F of bombay Primary Education Rules are to apply by residuary provision. However, such may not apply in case specific Staff Regulations/rules are sanctioned. (i) For the staff of the Panchayat Schools, the forum of ventilation of dispute is government by the provisions of statutory rules framed for the staff of the Panchayats and for the employees of the private primary schools the forum of ventilation of dispute is Primary Education Tribunal constituted as per the provisions of the Act. (j) The forum for ventilation of dispute for the staff of the Ashram Shalas is Ashram Shala Officer as per Schedule F. No other service conditions duly approved by Ashram Shala Officer are placed on record by either petitioners or by the respondents. (k) The Panchayat School as well as Private Primary school impart education from 1st to 7th i. e. Primary section as per the Act. The Ashram Shalas also impart education from 1st to 7th standards though not as per the Act, but at par with Panchayat Schools, more particularly in the matter of syllabus, etc. (k) The Panchayat School as well as Private Primary school impart education from 1st to 7th i. e. Primary section as per the Act. The Ashram Shalas also impart education from 1st to 7th standards though not as per the Act, but at par with Panchayat Schools, more particularly in the matter of syllabus, etc. (l) The pay-scales of staff of Ashram Shalas and the pay-scale of Staff of Schools run by Panchayats are same. ( 8 ) THE first aspect which may be required to be considered is whether the staff of Ashram Shalas or the employees of Ashram Shalas can be said as the employees of Panchayats or of the State Government. The answer obviously would be in negative. The employer of all staff of Ashram Shala is the concerned Trust or the Management of the Ashram shala, whereas for the staff of School run by panchayat is the concerned District Panchayat or other Panchayat, as the case may be. Therefore, it can be said that the relationship of the employer and the employee or the service conditions for governing the relationship of the employer and the employee between the employees of Ashram Shala and the Management of Ashram Shala is not at par with the staff of School run by Panchayats. If the employers are different between two classes of employees, it cannot be said that both the classes of the said employees are at par to that extent. ( 9 ) IT was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Oza, learned Counsel that so far as the staff of Private Primary School are concerned, the members of the petitioner Union would stand on the same position. On the other hand it was contended by the learned agp, Mr. Desai that the petitioners cannot be said as at par with the staff of Private Primary Schools, who are governed by Bombay Primary Education Act and, therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioners cannot invoke the principles of equal pay for equal work, unless the parity is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court to the fullest extent. ( 10 ) IF the matter is examined further it does appear that the Bombay Primary Education Act is applicable to the Private Primary Schools, whereas the said Act is not applicable to the Schools run by the Ashram shalas. ( 10 ) IF the matter is examined further it does appear that the Bombay Primary Education Act is applicable to the Private Primary Schools, whereas the said Act is not applicable to the Schools run by the Ashram shalas. It also appears that the service conditions of the staff of Private Primary Schools are concerned, they are strictly as per Schedule F, whereas in case of staff of Ashram Shalas though by model conditions, until other conditions are sanctions, the conditions as provided under Schedule f are to apply, but it does leave room for providing other service conditions for the staff of Ashram shalas. Further, the forum of ventilation of dispute between the employees of Ashram Shalas and the schools Managements vis-a-vis the forum of dispute for employees of Private Primary School and the management of the Private Primary Schools are different in as much as in case of former, the competent authority is Ashram Shala Officer, whereas in case of latter, the forum is Primary Education tribunal. It may be that for the purpose of imparting education the syllabus may be the same or that the method of examination may be based on the question papers set by the authority or may be at par with other Private Primary Schools, but thereby it cannot be said that the duty is to be discharged 100% in the same manner as that of the staff of private Primary Schools. ( 11 ) IT was sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that in case of Ashram Shalas, the duty is to be discharged for 24 hours, whereas in the case of staff of primary Schools run by the NGOS, duty is to be discharged to that extent and only duty is school-hours and, therefore, it was contended that the staff of Ashram Shalas would at least be entitled to the benefits at par with the staff of Primary schools run by NGOs. It deserves to be recorded that establishing an Ashram Shala is a scheme of the State Government to extend educational facilities with residential arrangements in the tribal areas. It does involve the additional financial burden than of providing grant to Private primary Schools. It deserves to be recorded that establishing an Ashram Shala is a scheme of the State Government to extend educational facilities with residential arrangements in the tribal areas. It does involve the additional financial burden than of providing grant to Private primary Schools. In case of Private Primary Schools no expenses are being borne by the Government for providing residential facilities to the staff or the students, nor for providing food or other facilities, which are incidental to the residential facilities in a School and hostel, except the mid- day meal Scheme to the students when they are in school. Further, the hours of duty cannot be the only criteria for conferring the benefits at par with the staff of primary schools. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in case of "all India Sainik School Association v. Defence minister " Chairman Sainik ", reported in AIR 1989 sc 88 in which similar contention was raised by the employees of Sainik School claiming the parity at par with the Central Government Schools, which are popularly known as "kendriya Vidhyalay" and the Apex court, after making observations at para 11 and 12 in the said decision, while negativing the claim observed that the employees of Sainik School is a different class and cannot be treated as Central government employees, nor can they be treated at par with the employees of Kendriya Vidhyalay. ( 12 ) EVEN otherwise also for undertaking the recruitment of the staff of Ashram Shalas, the procedure contemplated is not fully at par with the staff of private Primary School. In case of private primary school, the appointment has to be strictly in accordance with the statutory requirement and even for marking at the time of selection the same is to be governed by the instructions issued by the State government or the Authorities of the State government from time to time, including the Board. Such is not the situation in case of staff of Ashram shalas and the requirement is the selection through a Committee having the representation of various persons, including the Government Officer. Such is not the situation in case of staff of Ashram shalas and the requirement is the selection through a Committee having the representation of various persons, including the Government Officer. It also appears that the duty to be discharged by the staff of the schools run by the Panchayats as well as by the staff of Private Primary Schools must strictly meet with the requirement as per the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and Regulations, for which the exemption has been expressly granted in case of Ashram Shalas and its staff, except the service conditions are made applicable as provided under Schedule F until otherwise sanctioned. Therefore, in a case where service conditions are differently provided and sanction by the Ashram shala Officer, Schedule F will have no applicability. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr. Oza, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the staff of Ashram Shalas are 100% at par with the staff of Private Primary schools. Same is the situation if the comparison is made with the staff of the Panchayat schools, but the additional aspects as referred to hereinabove is that they are in employment with the Panchayat, whereas members of the petitioner Union are not in employment with the Panchayat, but thy are in employment with a public Trust running Ashram Shala. The reference may be made to the decision of this court (Coram: R. Balia, J.) dated 28. 4. 1998 in SCA no. 13666/1994 and allied matters. ( 13 ) THE next aspect which may be required to be examined is the invoking of the principles of equal pay for equal work by the members of the petitioner association against the State Government. If the matter is examined strictly in light of service jurisprudence based on the relationship of employer and the employee, then employers of the members of the petitioner Union are the Managements of Ashram shalas or the Trust running Ashram Shalas and not the State Government. The contract of employment between the employee and the employer is the major test for applicability of the principles of service jurisprudence for examining the claim of equal pay for equal work. The contract of employment between the employee and the employer is the major test for applicability of the principles of service jurisprudence for examining the claim of equal pay for equal work. Since the staff of Ashram Shalas are not and cannot be said to be in employment of the state Government or any instrumentality of the state, the principles of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked by the staff of Ashram Shalas against the State Government if the matter is examined strictly. However, the question does not end there. The additional aspects in the present case is that the right to have the primary education is treated as a fundamental right of the citizens. Such fundamental right, if not protected by the state, the aggrieved citizens can approach this court for ventilating the grievance. Such right is available to a student, who is not having facility or such facilities are not created by the State to have the primary education in the tribal area, but in the present case, the students have not approached this Court that on account of no proper treatment by the State in the matter of primary education, there is no proper education in Ashram shalas and, therefore, this Court may interfere, nor the management of Ashram Shala has approached this court contending, inter alia, that no proper fund is available with them so as to continue to impart education up to primary section in the tribal areas and, therefore, this Court may interfere. In the present case, teaching and non-teaching staff of the ashram Shalas have approached this Court contending that the State action is in contravention to the principles of equal pay for equal work and, therefore, this Court may issue suitable directions. If the matter is examined accordingly as observed hereinabove, it cannot be concluded that the staff of Ashram Shala is 100% at par with the staff of panchayat School or Private Primary School. Therefore, the equality is not proved. If the matter is examined accordingly as observed hereinabove, it cannot be concluded that the staff of Ashram Shala is 100% at par with the staff of panchayat School or Private Primary School. Therefore, the equality is not proved. When it is found by this Court that the staff of Ashram Shala is a different class, then the class of Private panchayat School employees and the class of private primary school employees, even if it is considered that the petitioner can approach this Court for invoking the principles of equal pay for equal work, then also on factual aspects it is not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court that there is 100% parity and, therefore, no relief can be granted on the contention of the petitioners for equal pay for equal work. ( 14 ) MR. OZA, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, while supporting the contention for equal pay for equal work relied upon the decision of single Bench of this Court (Coram: S. K. Keshote, J.) dated 18. 1. 1997 in SCA No. 3635 of 1987 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31. 7. 2001 in LPA No. 788 of 1998 in SCA No. 3635 of 1982 for contending that the staff of Private primary School stand at par with staff Panchayat school and other local authorities and he further contended that in the said matter this Court found that in the matter of extending benefit of pension scheme there is a discrimination and, therefore, ultimately the direction was given by this Court to extend the benefit of pension to the teachers of aided private Primary School in the State of gujarat. ( 15 ) MR. DESAI, learned AGP for the State authorities had submitted that after the decision of the Division bench of this Court the matter was carried before the Apex Court and thereafter the issue was remanded to this Court and during the course of the hearing after remand upon the suggestion of the Division bench of this Court the State came out with the scheme of pensionary benefits for teaching staff of private Primary Schools with the cut-off date of 1. 1. 1997 and, therefore, he submitted that the said decision cannot be said as laying down the law for enforcement of the right as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. 1. 1997 and, therefore, he submitted that the said decision cannot be said as laying down the law for enforcement of the right as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. ( 16 ) AS such, as observed hereinabove, it is found by this Court that the staff of Ashram Shala is not 100% at par with the staff of private primary schools and, therefore, the said judgement cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In any event, subsequently, as submitted by the learned agp the State has taken a policy decision of applying scheme to the teaching staff of private primary schools with the cut-off date of 1. 1. 1997 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners would be entitled to the same benefit as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. It deserves to be recorded that for the staff of ashram Shalas, there is already Contributory provident Fund (CPF) scheme in light of the pensionary benefit. Therefore, the contention of mr. Oza cannot be accepted on the ground that there is discrimination by the State amongst two equal classes of the employees. ( 17 ) THE next aspect deserves to be examined is whether a mandamus can be issued to the State if after passing the resolution, the same is not implemented by the state due to financial constraints. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Oza, learned counsel that once the Council of Ministers has taken the decision and the State Government has resolved in principle for acceptance of Bhagwatbhai Dave committee report vide Resolution dated 21. 1. 1986 the state cannot back out from the same on the ground that the implementation thereof is to result into more financial burden upon the State. If the contention of Mr. Oza is further examined, it does appear that thereafter vide Resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 and after taking into consideration the earlier Resolution dated 21. 1. 1986, which has been referred to vide Item No. 10 in the Resolution dated 25. 11. 1988, it has been resolved vide Clause No. 12 to grant the same pay-scale to the teaching and non- teaching staff of Ashram Shala as are being given to the staff and non-teaching staff of the Panchayat schools. Therefore, in view of the subsequent resolution of the State Government dated 25. 11. 11. 1988, it has been resolved vide Clause No. 12 to grant the same pay-scale to the teaching and non- teaching staff of Ashram Shala as are being given to the staff and non-teaching staff of the Panchayat schools. Therefore, in view of the subsequent resolution of the State Government dated 25. 11. 1988 the earlier resolution dated 21. 1. 1986 on the basis of which the strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners gets not only diluted, but it can be said that though the report of Bhagwatbhai Dave Committee is accepted by the state Government vide Resolution dated 21. 1. 1986, subsequently after taking into consideration all the aspects it has been decided by the State Government vide resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 to extend the only benefit to the staff of Ashram Shala of the same pay-scale to teaching and non-teaching staff. It is true that the resolution of the Government cannot be diluted or its effect cannot be nullified by any officers of the State Government by issuing instructions in contravention to the Government resolutions. However, even if one policy decision is taken by the State Government in the form of resolution, it is open to the State to pass another resolution either of diluting the effect of the earlier resolution or for implementing the earlier resolution in part or to drop the implementation of the earlier resolution. In a matter of taking policy decision by the State such room is always to be read. But thereby it cannot be said that the policy should not meet with the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, nor can it be said that such subsequent resolutions of the State government are not subject to judicial scrutiny of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. If this Court finds that the decision in the subsequent resolution is arbitrary or is illegal, the Court may strike down the action or the resolution. In any case, such is not the situation in the present case. If the State Government has passed subsequent resolution of conferring the benefits only to a limited extent of granting parity in the pay-scales of teaching and non-teaching staff of Ashram Shalas, may be on the ground of financial constraints, it cannot be said that the subsequent resolution dated 25. 11. If the State Government has passed subsequent resolution of conferring the benefits only to a limited extent of granting parity in the pay-scales of teaching and non-teaching staff of Ashram Shalas, may be on the ground of financial constraints, it cannot be said that the subsequent resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 is without there being any authority and, therefore, Mr. Oza is not factually right in contending that by executive fiat the resolution of the State Government is nullified or kept in abeyance. ( 18 ) IT was also sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Oza, learned Counsel for the petitioners that financial constraints is no valid ground on the part of the State Government in denying the implementation of its resolution and in support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10. 3. 2004 in LPA No. 1134 of 1997 in SCA No. 11071 of 1993 in case of "karshanbhai K. Rabari v. State of gujarat". I am of the view that it is not necessary for this Court to examine the said larger issue because the resolution dated 21. 1. 1986 itself gets diluted by subsequent resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 of the State Government and, therefore, it is not a matter where the State has declined to implement its own resolution on account of financial constraints, but the policy is modified to a limited extent by subsequent resolution dated 25. 11. 1988, may be on the ground of financial constraints and, therefore, the action of the State is in accordance with the said resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 and the action is not denied on the ground of financial constraints in contravention to the resolution dated 25. 11. 1988. ( 19 ) MR. OZA, learned Counsel for the petitioners also contended that even after acceptance of the same pay-scale for staff of Ashram Shala at par with teaching and non-teaching staff of Panchayat School and Primary School, even the policy of higher pay- scale on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 is not made applicable and for such purpose he relied upon Clause No. 3 (31) of the said resolution of the State Government which, inter alia, as per the contention of Mr. Oza provides for all non-Governmental School receiving grant from the state Government. 8. 1994 is not made applicable and for such purpose he relied upon Clause No. 3 (31) of the said resolution of the State Government which, inter alia, as per the contention of Mr. Oza provides for all non-Governmental School receiving grant from the state Government. It has been submitted on behalf of the State Government that the resolution of the government dated 16. 8. 1994 is applicable only to the government employees and/or Panchayat employees and employees of Ashram Shalas, not being Government servants or Panchayat employees, are not entitled to higher pay-scale. It has been further submitted that the Clause 3 (31) of the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 equally provides that the benefit of higher pay-scale shall be available only to those employees who are in GPF Scheme and it has been stated that the employees of Ashram Shalas not being included in the GPF Scheme are not entitled to the benefits of higher pay-scale as provided by way of resolution dated 16. 8. 1994. ( 20 ) IT appears that as observed earlier after the resolution dated 21. 1. 1986 subsequently as per the resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 the State Government has resolved for giving the same pay-scale as are being available to the staff of Panchayat Schools. Clause 12 of the Resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 provides not only the said decision, but also provided for the revised pay-scale of staff of Ashram Shalas with a view to put the scale of staff of Ashram Shalas at par with the staff of Schools run by Panchayats. It is also resolved that all benefits, as may be available, as per the Grant-in-Aid code shall be available to the staff of Ashram Shalas. At the time when the resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 was passed the staff of primary schools run by Panchayats were governed by the provisions of Government Pension scheme, but for staff of Private Primary School, there was no scheme provided for government pension. It is only in the year 2002 (4. 2. 2002) as declared by the learned AGP, the Government pension scheme is introduced for teaching staff of private primary schools by giving effect from 1. 1. 1997. Therefore on the date when the resolution dated 16. 8. It is only in the year 2002 (4. 2. 2002) as declared by the learned AGP, the Government pension scheme is introduced for teaching staff of private primary schools by giving effect from 1. 1. 1997. Therefore on the date when the resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 for grant of higher pay-scale due to non-availability of the higher post was passed, such government pensionary benefits scheme was not available even to the teaching staff of private primary schools. As observed earlier, even if it is considered that the staff of Ashram Shalas is not 100% situated at par with the staff of private primary schools, to the extent of 100%, it is not possible to agree that the teaching staff of Ashram Shalas in the matter of receiving of grant by the State Government and in the matter of getting the same pay-scale is not at par with the teaching staff of private primary schools, more particularly when the position prevailed on 16. 8. 1994 and the reason obvious being that on 16. 8. 1994 there was no government pension scheme even for teaching staff of private primary school. Therefore, to that extent it can be said that on 16. 8. 1994 when the Government passed the resolution in the matter of receiving grant from the state Government, the pay-scales were the same as that of teaching staff of Ashram Shalas and the teaching staff of private primary schools and to that extent for the purpose of extending the benefits of the resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 is concerned, it can be said that both teaching staff of Ashram Shala and the teaching staff of private primary Schools were equal and belong to the same class. If such is the position, then in that case any action of the State Government denying the benefits to a part of the Class which in the present case is staff of Ashram Shala would result into discriminatory treatment and consequently unconstitutional. It is not in dispute that the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 are not available to the teaching staff of private primary schools. The only distinguishing feature as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the state is that there is no applicability of government Pension Scheme to teaching staff of ashram Shalas. It is not in dispute that the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 are not available to the teaching staff of private primary schools. The only distinguishing feature as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the state is that there is no applicability of government Pension Scheme to teaching staff of ashram Shalas. Such a ground as sought to be canvassed for giving discriminatory treatment to the teaching staff of Ashram Shalas is ex-facie without any basis in as much as on 16. 8. 1994 there was no applicability of Government Pension scheme to the teaching staff of private primary school, nor was there any government pension scheme for the teaching staff of private primary schools on the date when the resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 came to be passed. Therefore, if the State Government has extended the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 to the teaching staff of private primary schools, there is no valid reason for discrimination, to teaching staff of Ashram Shalas and consequently the action of the Government can be said as discriminatory to that extent. It does appear that if the benefits of the Government resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 are extended to the teaching staff of private primary schools, the same is required to be extended to the teaching staff of ashram Shalas in view of the Government Resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 read with the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 and the reason stated hereinabove. ( 21 ) MR. OZA, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of "chandigarh Administration and Others v. Rajni vali", reported in 2000 (2) SCC, 42 for contending the principles of equal pay for equal work can be invoked by the staff of the Schools getting Grant- in-Aid from the State Government. He also relied upon the decision of another decision of Apex Court in case of "state of Haryana and Ors. v. Rajpal Sharma and Ors. ", reported in AIR 1997 SC, 449 and the decision of the Apex Court in case of "state of maharashtra v. `manubhai Pragaji Vashi and Ors. ", reported in AIR 1996 SC, 1. He also relied upon the decision of another decision of Apex Court in case of "state of Haryana and Ors. v. Rajpal Sharma and Ors. ", reported in AIR 1997 SC, 449 and the decision of the Apex Court in case of "state of maharashtra v. `manubhai Pragaji Vashi and Ors. ", reported in AIR 1996 SC, 1. It deserves to be recorded that the principles of equal pay for equal work cannot be stretched to the extent of equal perquisite benefits and incidental benefits of the staff of the person holding the post. The principle as it is would apply for equivalence in the pay- scale. Even if the aforesaid decisions are taken into consideration they related to some pay-scale to the employees of private School/law Colleges as are being available to the employees of Government schools or Government Law Colleges. In the present case, it is already resolved by the State Government vide Resolution dated 25. 11. 1988 and, therefore, the said decisions are of no help to the petitioners forgetting the other additional benefits i. e. , the benefits of pay-scale and the D. A. , as sought to be canvassed. ( 22 ) IN view of the above observations and discussions, the action of the respondent authorities of denying to the teaching staff of Ashram Shalas vide resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 is declared as discretionary and unconstitutional. It is further directed that the teaching staff of Ashram Shalas would be entitled to the benefits of the Government resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 at par with the teaching staff of private Primate School. Consequently the respective cases shall be considered by the competent authority in view of the Government resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 and the benefit as per the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994, if any, shall be considered for disbursement within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. ( 23 ) THE petitions are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Rule partly made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. .