Judgment : The petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk designated as Accountant in the respondent-School. According to the petitioner, he retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.8.2005 and he is entitled for retirement benefits including leave salary on Earned Leave for a maximum period of 240 days and Un-earned Leave on private affairs of 90 days as per G.O. Ms. No. 409, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 31.7.2004. He had 280 days’ leave to his credit. In addition to that, he was also entitled to encashment of Leave Salary for 90 days. Even though he is eligible for all these days, he was paid only a sum of Rs. 43,182/- for 90 days of Un-earned Leave on private affairs alone. When he made a representation, the first respondent rejected the same by an order dated 23.11.2005. According to the petitioner, the second respondent-School is run by a Committee headed by the first respondent-District Collector and it is a School affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, ‘CBSE’) and the bye-laws of the CBSE states that every employee shall be entitled to such leave as are admissible to the employees of corresponding status in Government School and encashment and accumulation of leave was also granted as per Government Schools. However, in the present impugned order, the first respondent had stated that since the said School is not receiving any aid from the Government, they cannot implement the Government Order in respect of encashment of Earned Leave and that the Management Committee of the School has decided to grant only a maximum of 90 days’ encashment which has been paid already to the petitioner. It is this order that is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the arguments of Ms. Svetlana Ragurajan, learned counsel appearing for Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Balakrishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A. Bobblie, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and have perused the records. 3. On behalf of the first respondent, it is clearly stated that the School was started in memory of one James Wilkinson Breeks, the first District Collector of the Nilgiris and it is a Private School with private funds and it does not enjoy any Government aid. 3. On behalf of the first respondent, it is clearly stated that the School was started in memory of one James Wilkinson Breeks, the first District Collector of the Nilgiris and it is a Private School with private funds and it does not enjoy any Government aid. It is run by a Committee and it is affiliated to CBSE. As per the resolution of the School Management Committee, the employees are eligible only for 90 days’ leave salary. Even on behalf of the fourth respondent, similar contentions are raised. It is also stated that the writ petition for enforcing such non-existent right does not arise. 4. Even though under the affiliation bye- laws it is stated that the School should pay the Government rates in respect of encashment, whether such a bye-law granting affiliation can be enforced in a Court of Law came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in two recent decisions. In the first decision in Sushmita Basu and Others v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Others Sushmita Basu and Others v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Others Sushmita Basu and Others v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Others (2006) 7 SCC 680 , the passage found in paragraph 3 reads as follows: “ 3. ……. We find considerable merit in the submissions on behalf of the respondents. In the absence of a statutory provision, we are not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that interference by the High Court underArticle 226of the Constitution is warranted in this case. We find on the whole that there has been just treatment of the teachers by the first respondent-institution and there is no reason to interfere even on the ground that the appellants are being treated unfairly by their employer, the educational institution, or on the basis that this is a case in which the conscience of the Court is shocked, compelling it to enter the arena to afford relief to the teachers.” (emphasis added) 5. Further, referring to the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering AIR 1998 SC 295 : (1997) 3 SCC 571 : 2001-III-LLJ-(Suppl)-1454, the Court held in paragraph 4 of the judgment as follows: “ 4. …….. Further, referring to the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering AIR 1998 SC 295 : (1997) 3 SCC 571 : 2001-III-LLJ-(Suppl)-1454, the Court held in paragraph 4 of the judgment as follows: “ 4. …….. that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus by the Court against a private educational institution like the first respondent herein, would be justified only if a public law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy no writ petition would lie. We think that even going by the ratio of that decision, a writ of mandamus could not have been issued to the first respondent in this case.” (emphasis added) The Court also struck a note of caution that if more benefits are demanded in a case of Unaided School, the burden will be passed on to the students and parents. 6. Thereafter, by another judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani and Another M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani and Another M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani and Another JT 2006 (9) SC 501, the above said decision was quoted with approval and it was held in paragraphs 22 to 25 as follows: “ 22. The legality of the contract entered into by and between the parties is not in issue. 23. Respondent-School noticed hereinbefore, is ready and willing to extend the benefit of revised scale of pay with effect from the date when it was implemented by it. Respondent-School, thus, has not treated the appellant very unfairly or unreasonably. A parity in payment of scale of pay between a private institution and the employees of the State cannot be directed as the same does not pertain to any legal right of a teacher. 24. We may notice that in Sushmita Basu and Others v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Others Sushmita Basu and Others v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Others Sushmita Basu and Others v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Others JT 2006 (12) SC 205, a Division Bench of this Court opined that for issuing such a direction an existence of a legal right in the teacher is imperative. 25. 25. This Court clearly held that interference in the affairs of a private educational institution would be justified only if public law element is involved.” 7. In the light of the above clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the prayer sought for by the petitioner can never be granted by this Court. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition will stand closed.