Judgment :- The Prayer in these writ petitions is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay the time scale of pay to the petitioners and implement 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1. 1996 as per G.O.Ms.No. 162, Finance (Pay cell) Department, dated 14. 1998 on the basis of the judgment in W.A.No. 461/2000, dated 9. 2001 with all consequential benefits. 2. All these petitioners are appointed in the first respondent Matriculation Higher Secondary School, which is established and administered by the Kallakurichi Cooperative Sugar Mills Society. The petitioners’ case is that the first respondent school is governed by the Code of Regulations framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. While granting recognition for the Matriculation School, the first respondent gave an undertaking to follow the regulations. Chapter V of the Regulation in Clause 16(2) of the Scale of pay stipulated as follows:- “The teachers and non-teaching staff in Matriculation Schools should be paid at least as per the Government scales of pay revised from time to time.” Chapter VII 8(2) also deals with the scale of Pay and it is specifically stated that the management shall pay the scale of pay to the teachers and non-teaching staff at the rate of Government scale fixed from time to time. However, the petitioners are not paid the said scale of pay from 1. 1996. 3. A similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 1962 of 2005, 2424 to 2428 of 1999, 1309 of 2000, 764 & 765 of 2001, by judgment dated 24. 2008. This Court considered the regulations applicable to the Matriculation Schools and in Paragraphs 21 to 32, it is held as follows:- “21. Identical view was echoed by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 05.09.2001 passed in Writ Appeal No. 461 of 2001, wherein it is held that as per G.O.Ms.No. 162 dated 13.04.1998, the managements like Matriculation Schools are liable to pay to their employees the wages on per with the employees in the Government Schools. While applying the principles set out in the case of M/s. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan Vs. While applying the principles set out in the case of M/s. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan Vs. State of U.P., (AIR 1982 S.C.32) to the present case, it ought to be held that the appellant managements are burdened with the responsibility of making equal pay to their teaching and non-teaching staff on par with those working in the Government Schools. This Court has also been of the similar view. .22. We have bestowed out best of consideration to the rival submissions of both the parties, in the light of well settled authoritative principles. In view of the above said weighty judicial Pronouncements, we are of the opinion that the managements of unaided educational institutions cannot complain about the infringement of fundamental rights to administer the institution, when they deny the members of its staff, the opportunity to achieve the very object of Article 13 (1) of the Constitution which is to make the institution an effective one. Converse of this concept has to be necessarily discountenanced. 23. By a conspectus of the subject, following propositions are formulable. The conclusion in each of these cases which are based on ultimate analysis, are designed to achieve such goals without which, it will nullify the very object of the consideration to a substantial measure. The object behind this principle is that the purpose is not to interfere with the administration of the autonomous institution, but it is merely to improve the excellence and efficiency of education, because a really good education can be received only if the tone and temper of the teachers are so framed as to make them to teach the students with devotion and dedication and put them above all. 24. The standard expected of a person intending to serve as a teacher could be achieved only when they are placed equally with the same class of people in Government institutions. Their rights are well insulated by the protective cover of Rules contained in Code of Regulation for Matriculation schools, which cannot be chiseled out by the plea that the school managements derive pitiable proceeds. When such rights are absolute in character, there could be no stumbling-block for the Government to issue executive fiat, regulating their pay as found in the said Code of Regulations. .25. When such rights are absolute in character, there could be no stumbling-block for the Government to issue executive fiat, regulating their pay as found in the said Code of Regulations. .25. Indisputably, a school or a college is personified through its teachers who put together play vital role and make focal point on which outsiders look at it. The teachers are the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set around whom they rotate to generate good result. While ill-paid teachers may not strictly be stated to be a cause for dropping grade of institution, well paid teachers would prove and could definitely claim that improvement in standard of education was by their leaps and bounds. The functional efficacy of a school very much depends upon the efficient and dedication of well placed teachers. The pictograph of a school can very well be ascertained by the productive teachers working therein. Degradation of creativity in the teachers could not be tolerated, since they are affiliated with the responsibility of producing good students. .The Courts cannot also be oblivious of this circumstance. The principles formulated by this Court are vigorously expressive. 26. The issue has been set at rest by the Supreme Court. The law in this behalf is explicit. In view of this, it is futile to contend that the Writ Petitioners could not invoke the principles of equal pay for equal work in the peculiar circumstances of these matters and there could be no comparison about the private unaided schools and the teachers serving in the Government schools. This notion is conceptually misconceived. It is to be borne in mind that while getting recognition from the Government for Upgrading the school, the Matriculation School authorities had thrown out the undertaking to the Government to abide by the guidelines formulated by the Government in the matter of payment of scales of their staff equal to those of the Government Staff. 27. In (1996) 5 SCC 273 , State of Haryana and Others Vs. 27. In (1996) 5 SCC 273 , State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rajpal Sharma and Others, the Supreme Court has referred to a Larger Bench decision of the Court and while clarifying the position, it was held that, the observations leave no doubt or scope for the Court and has directed that the teachers of he aided schools be paid the same scales of pay and dearness allowance as teachers in the Government Schools get and that the said payment must be made for the entire period claimed by the appellants and the petitioners in those cases. 28. As per the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court and in the back crop of the legal positions laid down, which have been illuminated in its decisions, it must be held that the Matriculation School teachers are entitled to get equal pay on par with the teachers who are working in the Government Schools. This view is judicially settled conviction. The legally assertive expressions could never be ignored. As per as W.P.No. 764 of 2001 is concerned, the non-teaching staff in the third respondent educational institutions are also entitled to get equal pay on par with their counterparts serving in the Government Schools. Therefore, the views expressed by the learned Judges in their respective orders deserve to be confirmed. .29. Writ Appeal No. 1309 of 2000 has arisen from the order passed in Writ petition No. 3373 of 1993. The request of the Writ Petitioner, namely, Mrs. Hilde Anbiah is two folded. One is to appoint her as the Principal of the third respondent school, namely, Noyes Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai and the other relief sought for is to pay her the dearness allowance, advance incentive increment and other benefits on par with the Government employees in accordance with Chapter V, Article 16 and Chapter VI, Article 18 of the Code of Regulation of Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu together with arrears. 30. It is her contention that even though she was qualified as per the Regulations of the School, she was ignored and another teacher Mrs. K. Rajamanickam was promoted to the post of Principal, violating the procedure. 31. 30. It is her contention that even though she was qualified as per the Regulations of the School, she was ignored and another teacher Mrs. K. Rajamanickam was promoted to the post of Principal, violating the procedure. 31. After discussing the contentions of both sides, the learned single Judge has turned down the request of the petitioner as for as the direction for appointment is concerned, but allowed the Writ Petition as regards the payment of salary to her on per with the Government school teachers. The learned singe Judge in order to arrive at the conclusion with regard to the appointment of petitioner as the Principal in the school, has taken into consideration, the competency of the minority school to appoint any person chosen by it. 32. The learned singe Judge has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court. In our considered view, the decision arrived at by the learned singe Judge is quite appropriate. With reference to the grant of relief, as to her appointment as Principal, the Writ Petitioner has not preferred any appeal. Regarding the relief for direction to payment of salary to her on per with the Government school teacher, the school management has preferred writ Appeal No. 1309 of 2000. The observations which we have furnished supra are squarely applicable to the contention of the writ petitioner.” 4. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench holding that the teachers employed in Matriculation Schools are entitled to get the similar scale of pay applicable to the Government School teachers, the first respondent is bound to pay the said scale of pay to the petitioners also. .5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner in W.P.No. 20008 of 2005 has already left the school. If the said petitioner had already left the school, the first respondent is directed to pay the salary payable to the petitioner also till the petitioner left the school. The first respondent is directed to implement this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.