JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J.:- This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 i.e. The Managing Committee, Dev Samaj College for Women, Sector 45, Chandigarh, to make payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 6.11.1996 till 22.5.2000. 2. It has been contended that the advertisement issued for selection of Lecturer made it evident that the persons selected and appointed would be given grades as permissible under UGC/DPI norms. Despite such being the facts, the petitioner was not given grades as claimed till 22.5.2000 when the petitioner was absorbed on aided post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites Chandigarh Administration & Others vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) & Others, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 42 to contend that parity in employment is required to be maintained and teachers of educational institutions have to be given equal pay for equal work. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has taken preliminary objection that no writ is maintainable against the Managing Committee in regard to a post that is not aided. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Bhupinder Singh & Another vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 18264 of 2002, decided on 10.4.2003). The other objection taken is that the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner in 1996, the present petition has been filed in the year 2006. The delay and laches do not entitled the petitioner to any relief. 5. On facts, it has been contended that Annexure P-1 i.e. the appointment letter itself shows that the petitioner was appointed on salary of Rs. 2,200/- per month. Service condition of the petitioner was further clarified in Annexure P-1 to the effect that the petitioner would be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the affiliated colleges and memorandum of Dev Samaj Association. Till May 2000, the petitioner was on an unaided post and therefore, the Government had no deep or pervasive control. When the petitioner was absorbed on aided post, the grades as permissible are being paid. 6. No other argument has been raised. 7. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the documents. 8. Till May 2000, the petitioner was on an unaided post and therefore, the Government had no deep or pervasive control. When the petitioner was absorbed on aided post, the grades as permissible are being paid. 6. No other argument has been raised. 7. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the documents. 8. So far as the preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the petition is concerned, reference may be made to judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K. Krishnacharyulu & Others vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Another, (1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 571. Para 4 of the said judgment reads as under:- “It is not in dispute that executive instructions issued by the Government have given them the right to claim the pay scales so as to be on par with the Government employees. The question is; when there is no statutory values issued in that behalf, and the Institution, at the relevant time, being not in receipt of any grant-in-aid; Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable? In view of the long line of decisions of this Court holding that when there is a interest created by the Government in a Institution to impart education, which is a fundamental right of the citizens, which is a fundamental right of the citizens, the teachers who teach the education gets an element of public interest in the performance of their duties. As a consequence, the element of public interest requires to regulate the conditions of service of those employees on bat with Government employees. In consequence, are they also not entitled to the parity of the pay scales as per the executive instruction so the Government? It is not also in dispute that all the persons who filed the writ petition along with the appellant has later withdrawn from the writ petition and thereafter the respondent-Management paid the salaries on par with the Government employees. Since the appellants are insisting upon enforcement of their right through the judicial pressure, they need and seek the protection of law. We are of the view that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to the people to available of the right to education. The private institutions cater to the needs of the educational opportunities. Since the appellants are insisting upon enforcement of their right through the judicial pressure, they need and seek the protection of law. We are of the view that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to the people to available of the right to education. The private institutions cater to the needs of the educational opportunities. The teacher duly appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as to which forum one should approach. The High Court has held that the remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act. When an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to the element, the teacher, the arm of the institution is also entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226: the jurisdiction part is very wide. It would be different position, if the remedy is a private law remedy. So, they cannot be denied the same benefit which is available to others. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is maintainable. They are entitled to equal pay so as to be on par with Government employees under Article 39(d) of the Constitution.” 9. On consideration of the above extracted portion, it becomes evident that the writ petition is maintainable in regard to the claim of the petitioner. 10. The advertisement issued for the post on which the petitioner was appointed on full time basis as a Lecturer in Commerce itself shows that it was in the context of “qualifications/grades as per UGC/DPI norms.” The respondent-Institution is getting aid. Accordingly, an interest created by the Government in the respondent-College to impart education would involve element of public interest in the performance of its duties. The element of public interest requires regulation of the conditions of service of those employees on a par with Government employees. The State has the obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to the people to avail of the right to education. The perusal of above extracted portion makes it clear that writ petition is maintainable. 11. In view of the above, the respondents cannot derive any benefit from Bhupinder Singh’s case (supra). 12. So far as the second preliminary objection that writ suffers from delay and laches, is concerned, I am not impressed by the argument. The perusal of above extracted portion makes it clear that writ petition is maintainable. 11. In view of the above, the respondents cannot derive any benefit from Bhupinder Singh’s case (supra). 12. So far as the second preliminary objection that writ suffers from delay and laches, is concerned, I am not impressed by the argument. The advertisement itself made it evident that the candidates were required to have qualifications as per UGC/DPI norms. The terms published also mention grades as per UGC/DPI norms. The petitioner has been appointed as full time Lecturer in Commerce, in the context of the advertisement, however, was given less salary. 13. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no delay in filing the writ petition. 14. So far as, arguments on facts are concerned, the extract of advertisement has been reproduced in Para 4 of the petition which provides that applications are invited from women candidates for full time Lecturers in Commerce, part time Lecturers in Commerce. It has further been provided that qualifications/ grades are as per UGC/DPI norms. 15. Annexure P-1 is the letter of appointment dated 4.11.1996 issued to the petitioner. The nature of appointment has been shown as regular full time Lecturer in Commerce, however, against Column of Pay, the following has been given out:- “Rs. 2200/- p.m. in the above mentioned scale of pay plus allowances as admissible from time to time.” 16. Annexure P-3 is a letter dated 29.3.1997 addressed to the petitioner by the Chairman of the Managing Committee. The petitioner has been informed that in reference to the appointment letter dated 6.11.1996, the Managing Committee of Dev Samaj College for Women had resolved in its meeting dated 19.3.1997 to confirm the petitioner as a regular full time Lecturer in Commerce w.e.f. 1.4.1997 against an uncovered post in the grade of Rs. 2,200/-. Allowances will be given from the management fund as per the decision of the Managing Committee. The letter further clarified in the matter of condition of service that petitioner would be governed by the rules framed by the Managing Committee. 17. Annexure P-4 is an Order passed by the Chandigarh Administration, wherein sanction has been accorded to the appointment of the petitioner in Dev Samaj College for Women, Sector 45, Chandigarh for grant-in-aid purposes. The letter further clarified in the matter of condition of service that petitioner would be governed by the rules framed by the Managing Committee. 17. Annexure P-4 is an Order passed by the Chandigarh Administration, wherein sanction has been accorded to the appointment of the petitioner in Dev Samaj College for Women, Sector 45, Chandigarh for grant-in-aid purposes. In context of the petitioner, it has been provided that the petitioner would be part-time on payment of Rs. 2,200/- for the period 6.11.1996 to the end of Session i.e. 30.4.1997. Further the letter provides that “difference between full time salary and part time salary and also payment for the gap period will have to be made by the Management as per their commitment to the Selection Committee during interview and in view of the appointment letter issued by the Principal to Mrs. Rakhi Dhawan”. 18. Annexure R-1 is a document appended with the written statement filed on behalf of the Managing Committee i.e. respondent No. 1. The Managing Committee, accordingly, took a decision on 26.1.1997 whereby approval was granted to the Lecturers appointed in Session 1996-97. The date of appointment of the petitioner has been shown as from 6.11.1996 on full time basis on probation for one year. In the context of salary, the document has clarified, “Resolved that Rs. 3500/- consolidated will be paid to a full time lecturer in commerce”. 19. Annexure R-2 is a letter written by the petitioner to the Principal, Dev Samaj College on 1.3.2000. It discloses that the petitioner on verification had come to know that Chandigarh Administration had accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner as part time Lecturer from 6.11.1996 to 30.4.1997 on Rs. 2200/- per month. The petitioner, in Annexure R-2, admits to have been receiving a lump-sum salary of Rs. 3500/- per month. 20. The petitioner, by way of Annexure R-2, claimed to be “eligible for consideration for my appointment as lecturer in commerce against the covered post, which has since been sanctioned by DPI (Colleges), Chandigarh Administration”. The petitioner accordingly requested for regularization as a Lecturer in Commerce against covered post and further claimed full salary alongwith allowances as per original appointment letter. 21. So as to deal with the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner in Rajni Vali’s case (supra), the issue raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been crystallized in Para 4. 21. So as to deal with the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner in Rajni Vali’s case (supra), the issue raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been crystallized in Para 4. The issue, after detailed discussion and reference to other judgments has been decided in Para 9 and 10. When extracted, Para 4, 9 and 10 of the judgment rendered in Rajni Vali’s case (supra) read as under:- “4. From the discussion in the impugned judgment it appears that the writ petitioners pressed their claim mainly on the principle of equal pay for equal work. They also made a grievance about discriminatory treatment meted out to them by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management. The appellants on the other hand refuted the claim, as noted earlier, on the ground of conditional grant of permission to open the higher secondary classes and paucity of funds to meet the additional burden in case the prayer in their writ petition is allowed. Substantially, the same position was repeated during the hearing of the case in this court. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that under the rules governing grant in aid, the staff position of the aided institutions as on 30.11.1967, has been frozen; since all the respondents were appointed subsequent to that date, they are not entitled to salary at par with teachers of other aided schools who were in service by the cut off date. xx xx xx xx xx xx 9. Tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions, the position is manifest that there is no justification for denying the claim of the respondents for parity of pay scale and to accept the contention of the appellants will amount to confirming the discriminatory treatment against the respondents. Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the case of the appellants. The directions issued in the impugned Judgment to pay the Respondents 1 to 12 the same salary as is being paid to their- counter parts in the privately managed Government aided schools in Chandigarh in the circumstances is unassailable. 10. Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the case of the appellants. The directions issued in the impugned Judgment to pay the Respondents 1 to 12 the same salary as is being paid to their- counter parts in the privately managed Government aided schools in Chandigarh in the circumstances is unassailable. 10. Coming to the contention of the appellants that the Chandigarh Administration will find it difficult to bear the additional financial burden if the claim of the Respondents 1 to 12 is accepted, we need only say that such a contention raised in different cases of similar nature has been rejected by this Court. The State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges-on the plea of lack of resources. It is for the Authorities running the Administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose. We do not deem it necessary to consider this question in further detail. The contention raised by the appellants in this regard is rejected. It is, however, clarified that the proportion in which the additional burden will be shared by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management of the school will be in accordance with the Grant-in- aid Scheme applicable to the school from time to time. The judgment of the High Court that the sharing of the financial burden will be in the ratio of 95% to 5% is modified accordingly.” 22. On perusal of the judgment in the context of the facts of the present case, it follows that Dev Samaj College is an aided institution. While some of the posts are aided, which, in the petition have been referred to as covered posts, for some of the posts, College does not get any aid. 23. In context of the petitioner, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Chandigarh Administration w.e.f. 6.11.1996 although on part-time basis as per Annexure P-4. The petitioner, however, was serving on full time basis as is the admitted case of the College in Annexure P-3 wherein the petitioner had been confirmed as regular full time Lecturer in Commerce, however, on an uncovered post. There remains no doubt in my mind that the petitioner has been serving the respondent - College on full time basis as a Lecturer in Commerce. There remains no doubt in my mind that the petitioner has been serving the respondent - College on full time basis as a Lecturer in Commerce. No distinction can be drawn in the work rendered by the petitioner as compared to the work done by other lecturers who were on aided/ covered posts. Once the factual position is crystallised as above, it has to be held that case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment rendered in Rajni Vali’s case (supra). 24. The findings recorded above are further supported from the advertisement issued at the time of selection of the petitioner which clarified the qualifications and grades as per UGC/DPI norms would be given. Having invited applications from candidates with the promise that grades as per UGC/DPI norms would be given, after appointment, the respondents cannot be allowed to turn around, particularly because the petitioner has been rendering the same services as the other lecturers who were serving on aided/ covered posts. The case of the petitioner also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in K. Krishnamacharyulu’s case (supra), portion of which has been extracted in earlier part of this judgment. 25. The respondents have tried to take refuge on technicality while saying that in the appointment letter, only Rs. 2,200/- have been referred to in the column of pay. 26. If the appointment letter of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) is considered in the context of advertisement, it becomes evident that two posts of Lecturers in Commerce full time were advertised, while two posts of Lecturers in Commerce for part time were advertised. The petitioner admittedly was offered appointment on full time regular basis. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held that the petitioner is entitled to the same grades of pay as per UGC/DPI norms that is to say that those scales/ grades that are permissible to a full time Lecturer appointed on regular basis against an aided post. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ----------