JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals are directed against the judgments passed by the learned single Judge dated 25-11-2005 and 9-10-2006 allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since the two of these appeals are filed within the time prescribed, therefore, delay in filing of the Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1054/06, for the stated reasons, is condoned for deciding all the appeals on merits. 3. The writ petitions, in the present set of appeals, were filed by the Managing Committee of the private aided colleges namely; M.K. Saboo P.G. College, Pilani, Anudanit Niji Mahavidyalaya Prabandh Karini Parishad and Seth Moti Lal (PG) College, Jhunjhunu contending that Management Committee of these Colleges are duly constituted as per Section 9 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989'). The Government of India and University Grants Commission with a view to fulfilling their constitutional obligations for maintenance of standards in higher education, decided to revise the pay scales of teachers in Central Universities and Colleges so that talent in teaching profession is attracted. The Government of India vide its letter dated 27-5-1998 addressed to the University Grants Commission (for short - 'the UGC') approved the scheme of revised pay scale and service conditions of such teachers which came to be known as Career Advancement Scheme (for short - 'CAS'). The Government simultaneously also wrote a letter to the Education Secretaries of all the State Government and union territories on the same date informing about such decision and that they may adopt the scheme as it is or in their discretion, may decide to introduce scale of pay in different form than those mentioned in the scheme after taking local conditions into consideration and may give effect to such revised pay scales from 1-1-1996 or from any later date, after modifying the scheme and getting the same approved by the Government of India. Acceptance of the scheme in its proposed form was however subjected to acceptance of five conditions referred to the letter of Government of India dated 17-6-1987. 4. Acceptance of the scheme in its proposed form was however subjected to acceptance of five conditions referred to the letter of Government of India dated 17-6-1987. 4. Government of Rajasthan accepted the scheme of revision of pay scale approved by the Government of India without any modification and thereupon issued a notification dated 7-5-99 amending Rajasthan Civil Services (Revision of Pay Scales for Government Colleges Teachers including Librarians and PTIs), Rules 1999, thus making the UGC pay scale applicable to all Government Colleges with effect from 1-1-1996. The State Government by issuing another order dated 3-7-99, directed that the scales for the teaching staff of non- Government educational colleges will be same as admissible to the teachers in the Government Colleges in accordance with such rules. This order was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department of the State, UGC pay scales were notified by the University Grants Commission by notification dated 24-12-1998 by means of promulgating UGC (Minimum Qualification required for the appointment and career advancement of the teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, which provided for CAS namely; grant of senior scale and selection scale. Consequently, the State Government also issued order dated 19-5-01 in continuation of its earlier order 7-5-99 to introduce the scheme of CAS for grant of senior scale and selection scale to the Lecturers in the Government Colleges with effect from 27-7-98. The State Government then issued another order dated 29-10-01 making the CAS applicable to the Lecturers of the Non-Government Colleges which was made applicable for Government Colleges by the aforesaid order dated 19-5-01. It provided the procedure for granting the selection scale as per the recommendation of the Screening Committee. It also provided the procedure for constitution of Screening Committee etc. This order further provided that no aid will be given to the Non-Government Colleges for the grant of senior and selection scale to the Lecturers as aforesaid. It was this condition with which the writ petitioners-respondents felt aggrieved and approached this Court. 5. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the premise that the controversy raised therein already stood settled by judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5271/92 dated 7-5-93 titled Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti v. State of Rajasthan. The said judgment was later affirmed by the division bench and also by the Supreme Court. 5. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the premise that the controversy raised therein already stood settled by judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5271/92 dated 7-5-93 titled Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti v. State of Rajasthan. The said judgment was later affirmed by the division bench and also by the Supreme Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, the State Government is in appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge. 6. We have heard Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Shri N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the writ-petitioners-respondents. 7. Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the State Government failed to appreciate the scheme of the Act of 1989. The respondents could not claim grant in aid as a matter of right. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Rajasthan Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan, 2005(2) SCT 534 : 2005(5) Supreme Court Cases 275 , decided on 7-4-05. It was argued that the Supreme Court considering the scheme of the Act of 1989 and the rules framed thereunder held that aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Reference was made to sub-section (1) and (4) of Section 7 on this respect. It was contended that sub-sections (4) of Section 7 provides that the aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be prescribed. According to sub-section (6) of Section 7, the sanctioning authority may stop, reduce or suspend aid on breach of the terms and conditions prescribed in this behalf. Learned counsel argued that the Government vide its order dated 7-12-2001 though extended the benefit of CAS to the teachers of the aided Colleges at par with the teachers of Government College with effect from 27-7-98, however, it clearly stated that State Government will not provide any additional aid in this regard. Reference was made to the order of Finance Department dated 15-10-01. Learned counsel submitted that judgment of this Court in Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti which was upheld by division bench and later on, by Supreme Court which arose out of the scheme of revision of pay scale of teachers of UGC Colleges introduced by the UGC with effect from 1-1-1996. Reference was made to the order of Finance Department dated 15-10-01. Learned counsel submitted that judgment of this Court in Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti which was upheld by division bench and later on, by Supreme Court which arose out of the scheme of revision of pay scale of teachers of UGC Colleges introduced by the UGC with effect from 1-1-1996. Government of India in its communication dated 17-6-1987 intimated about such scheme to the State Government. Condition No. 3 of this letter provided that the State Governments will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own resources and will not pass on their liability to the management of the private colleges. There was no such stipulation of this nature in the present scheme. He in this behalf referred to the communication of the Government of India dated 27-7-1988, especially para 2 (a), (b) & (e) and argued that although it was stated in the said letter that the Central Government will provide financial assistance to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision and the State Government will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from its own sources, but clause (e) provides that the entire liability on account of revision of pay scale, etc., of university and college teachers would be taken over by the State Government w.e.f. 1-4-2000. Unlike in the earlier instructions of the Government of India, this letter did not specifically provide that the State Government will not pass on the liability or any portion thereof to the University or private colleges. It was therefore argued that the State Government cannot be compelled to foot the bill of additional liability in so far as the introduction of CAS in private colleges is concerned. 8. Shri N. K. Maloo, learned counsel for the respondents however opposed the appeals and argued that the controversy raised in the present matters is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the judgment of Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti, supra, the only difference being that the earlier scheme of revision of pay scale was introduced by Government of India pursuant to the decision of UGC following recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission, whereas this one was introduced after recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission were accepted. Shri N. K. Maloo submitted that the letter of the Government of India dated 27-7-1998 was a conditional letter which provided that in discharging its constitutional responsibility, the Central Government decided to provide financial assistance to the State Governments who want to adopt and implement the scheme of revision of pay scale subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. While one of the conditions was that Central Government will provide financial assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure, another prerequisite condition was that the State Government shall have to meet the remaining 20% expenditure from its own sources and that the entire liability on account of revision of pay scale etc. of University and College Teachers would be taken over by the State Government with effect from 1-4-2000. Like in the earlier pay revision, this time also the Government of India made it optional for the State Government, whether or not to accept the said scheme and set it free that it could after taking local conditions into consideration decide in its discretion to introduce the scale of pay different from those mentioned in the scheme. Having accepted the scheme, the State Government could not be permitted to say that it would implement one scheme for the teachers in the Government college and another for the teachers in the private colleges. All these aspects of the matter have already been gone into and decided by this Court in Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti. The division bench upheld the aforesaid judgment and thereafter SLP filed by the State of Rajasthan against the said judgment of the division bench was also rejected wherein the arguments similar to the one raised herein were also raised, considered and rejected. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment and also the earlier judgment passed by single bench and division bench of this Court in Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti, supra. 10. The communication of the Government of India dated 17-6-1987 gave rise to the earlier litigation in Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment and also the earlier judgment passed by single bench and division bench of this Court in Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti, supra. 10. The communication of the Government of India dated 17-6-1987 gave rise to the earlier litigation in Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti. In para 8 of the said communication, the Government of India made it clear that the State Government after taking local conditions into consideration, may decide on its own to introduce different pay scales than those mentioned in the scheme and may give effect to the revised scale of pay from January 1, 1996 or a later date. In such cases, the details of modification proposed in the scales of pay and the date from which such schemes may be implemented, was required to be furnished by the State Government for the purpose of approval. An exactly similar condition was stipulated in the letter dated 27-7-1998 which is communicated by the Government of India and addressed to the Education Secretaries of all the State Governments. This Court in Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti clearly noted that though the option was given to the State Government to introduce different revised pay scales, the State Government had accepted the scheme adopted by the Central Government and had obtained assistance to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of pay scale. It cannot now go back upon its promise, which was made to the Government of India for obtaining such Central assistance. It was a composite scheme and once it was accepted, the State Government could not implement only one part of it. The division bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 787/93, State of Rajasthan v. Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti, vide its judgment dated 19-11-1993 dismissed the special appeal of the State Government. The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20691/94 was also dismissed, which was filed against the aforesaid judgment of division bench, by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 18-9-95. 11. The distinction sought to be made by the State of Rajasthan between the scheme in question and the earlier scheme hardly has any justification. The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20691/94 was also dismissed, which was filed against the aforesaid judgment of division bench, by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 18-9-95. 11. The distinction sought to be made by the State of Rajasthan between the scheme in question and the earlier scheme hardly has any justification. The conditions of the earlier communication of the Government of India dated 17-6-1987 were as follows : "(1) The Central Government will provide assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of scales of pay. (2) The Central assistance to the extent indicated above will be available for the period January 1, 1986 to March 31, 1990. (3) The State Government will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own resources and will not pass on the liability or any portion thereof to the Universities or the managements of private colleges. (4) The State Government will take over the entire responsibility for maintaining the revised scales of pay w.e.f. April 1, 1990. (5) Central assistance will be restricted to the revision of pay scales of the posts which were in existence on January, 1986. 12. The communication dated 27-7-1986, with which we are concerned in the present matters, in its para 2 conveyed as under : "(a) that the Central Government will provide financial assistance to the State Governments which have opted for these revised pay scales to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision. (b) The State Governments will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own sources. (sic) (d) The financial assistance, indicated above, would be provided for the period from 1-1-1996 to 31-3-2000. (e) The entries liability on account of revision of pay scales, etc. of University and Colleges teachers would be taken over by the State Governments w.e.f. 1-4-2000. (f) The Central assistance would be restricted to revision of pay scales in respect of only those posts which were in existence and filled up on 1-1-1996." 13. (e) The entries liability on account of revision of pay scales, etc. of University and Colleges teachers would be taken over by the State Governments w.e.f. 1-4-2000. (f) The Central assistance would be restricted to revision of pay scales in respect of only those posts which were in existence and filled up on 1-1-1996." 13. The omission of the additional line contained in Clause (3) that the State Government will not pass any liability or any portion thereof to the Universities or the managements of private colleges is inconsequential because the letter of the Central Government has to be read in its entirety and in the subsequent letter, the Government of India has clearly mentioned that this revision of pay and introduction of new scheme following recommendations of the fifth pay commission was in continuation of earlier pay revisions. The letter stated that the Central Government has in discharging its constitutional liability, decided to continue to provide financial assistance to the State Governments who shall adopt the scheme of revision of pay, subject to terms and conditions aforesaid. Clause (3) of the letter gave option to the State Governments to either accept the scheme or not to accept the scheme and propose any other scheme for approval of the Government of India. The State Government however accepted the scheme in its entirety. The scheme clearly stipulated that the Central Government would provide financial assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of scale of pay and that remaining 20% of the expenditure shall be borne out by the State Government from its own resources and that entire liability on account of revision of pay scale etc. of Universities of College Teachers would be taken over by the Government with effect from April 1, 1990. The State Government, as rightly held by this Court in Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti, supra, was estopped from going back upon its stand and accord a different treatment to the teachers working in private colleges than those in the Government colleges. The Government of India decided to provide financial assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% for revision of pay scale to the teachers of all such Colleges. The Government of India decided to provide financial assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% for revision of pay scale to the teachers of all such Colleges. The Government of India was discharging its constitutional obligation and likewise the State Government also cannot escape from its corresponding obligation to provide financial assistance to the extent of remaining 20%. 14. In fact, in Special Leave to Appeal Petition filed by the State Government, the argument that the additional expenditure incurred for the revised pay scales should be in the proportion of grant-in-aid it provided, was pointedly raised in ground 'C' of the SLP filed by the State and yet the same was rejected by the Supreme Court. Ground 'C' thereof reads as under : "The Hon'ble High Court erred in not appreciating that when the various aided institutions are getting aids from 50% to 90% in accordance to the categorisation as provided in Rule 5 of the 1963 Rules and Rule 13 of the 1993 Rules, the additional expenditure incurred for the revised pay scales will be in the same proportion or the State of Rajasthan will not be bound to reimburse 100 per cent of the said additional expenditure to the aided institutions." 15. Reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajasthan Welfare Society, supra is misplaced because what was being claimed by the aided educational Institutions in that case was the proportionate amount of aid towards their liability to pay gratuity to their employees. The Supreme Court in that case held that since gratuity did not form part of the approved expenditure in terms of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Non Government Recognition of Grant in Aid and Service etc. Rules 1999 framed under the Act of 1989, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The present controversy arises in an altogether different context where revision of pay scale by introducing CAS, granting senior scale or selection scale to the teachers facing stagnation over number of years, was introduced by the Central Government and proposed to the State Government for being introduced in the colleges of the State on the condition that the Central Government would provide 80% assistance towards additional liability on the condition that remaining 20% was provided by the State Government. The State Government accepted that liability in preference to the option not to accept the scheme and evolve its own scheme. The State Government having accepted that liability, cannot now go back from its stand and turn around and say that it was accepted only partly towards teachers working in the Government Colleges and not in the Private Colleges. This pay revision scheme was in continuation of the earlier pay revision scheme which was introduced following recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Salary admittedly forms part of the approved expenditure. Ratio of Supreme Court judgment in Rajasthan Welfare Society, supra, therefore, would hardly have any application in the facts of the present case. 16. We therefore do not find any merit in these appeals, which are dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******