Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is an Educational Society which is running Malwa Khalsa Senior Secondary School at Ferozepur City. The School is managed by the Managing Committee constituted in accordance with the rules. Respondent No. 2 Kulwinder Kaur, was appointed as SS Mistress in the school aforesaid on 05.08.1978. The school is a privately managed government aided School governed by the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised School Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. Besides granting 95 per cent grant-in-aid to the petitioner and the similarly situated schools, the State of Punjab issued orders dated 02.06.1990 allowing House Rent Allowance to the employees of such schools with effect from 01.01.1986 subject to the condition that the department has satisfied itself about the admissibility and genuineness of such a claim. 2. Respondent No. 2 claimed House Rent Allowance with effect from 03.06.1987 to June, 1989 by making application on the prescribed proforma. She also wrongly withdrew an amount of Rs. 11650/- on account of House Rent Allowance for the period from April, 1987 to March,1990. The Audit Party raised an objection in this regard and asked for recovery of the same from respondent No. 2. A Show Cause Notice was issued to respondent No. 2 to explain her position and departmental proceedings were started by issuing a charge sheet to her. She was also placed under suspension vide order dated 09.09.1992 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No. 2 challenged the order of suspension before the Director Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the DPI (S) Punjab"). The DPI (S) Punjab, vide order dated 27.1.1994 (Annexure P- 3) dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 holding that respondent No. 2 is guilty of interpolation of the record and forgery to falsely claim the House Rent Allowance and the Managing Committee was granted liberty to take action against respondent No. 2 The petitioner society instituted an enquiry in respect to the conduct of respondent No. 2. The Enquiry Officer found respondent No. 2 guilty and the petitioner took a decision on 10.05.1993 to terminate the services of respondent No. 2 in terms of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. The order of termination was required to be approved by the DPI (S) Punjab as per the requirement of Rule 18 of the Rules. The Enquiry Officer found respondent No. 2 guilty and the petitioner took a decision on 10.05.1993 to terminate the services of respondent No. 2 in terms of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. The order of termination was required to be approved by the DPI (S) Punjab as per the requirement of Rule 18 of the Rules. Accordingly, an application was forwarded to the DPI (S) Punjab, for grant of approval. It is alleged that the application remained pending before the DPI (S), Punjab, for a number of years and finally vide order dated 11.07.2001 (Annexure P-4) approval was declined and the petitioner Society was asked to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. While passing this order, it was also directed that no grant in aid shall be paid to the Society in respect to the period in question. However, the Society was granted liberty to recover the excess amount of House Rent Allowance from respondent No. 2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order passed by the DPI (S) Punjab, the petitioner Society preferred an appeal before the State School Tribunal, Punjab, constituted under Section 8 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Society vide its order dated 28.02.2008 (Annexure P-5) upholding the order of the DPI (S), Punjab. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 3813 of 2005 before this Court. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was, however, partially allowed and the order of the DPI (S) Punjab, was modified. This Court passed the following directions :- "We, therefore, modify the order passed by the DPI (S) insofar a direction has been issued to the State of Punjab not to release grant in aid to the Petitioner-society. The matter is remanded back to the State Government to take a final decision as to whether the grant in aid is to be released to the petitioner-Society. The State Government is directed to take a decision with regard to the release of grant in aid to the Petitioner-Society within a period of three months from today. We further direct the petitioner-Society to release the amount due to respondent No. 4 within a period of one month from today. Petition disposed of accordingly. Sd/- SS Nijjar, Judge Sd/- SS Saron, Judge" January 22, 2007. We further direct the petitioner-Society to release the amount due to respondent No. 4 within a period of one month from today. Petition disposed of accordingly. Sd/- SS Nijjar, Judge Sd/- SS Saron, Judge" January 22, 2007. 3 Consequent upon the aforesaid direction, the petitioner Society made a written representation dated 24.3.2008 (Annexure P7) to respondent No. 1 State for release of grant in aid to the extent of 95 per cent. The petitioner also relied upon a case of Tarsem Lal Jain, Retired Principal, SDP Senior Secondary School, Hazoor Road, Ludhiana and a decision rendered in CWP No. 18806 of 2004. Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 21.04.2008 (Annexure P-8), rejected the representation of the petitioner. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner Society for grant-in-aid in respect to respondent No. 2 Teacher, the State has relied upon Clause (d) of para 69 of the GRANTS-IN-AID Rules, which reads as under :- "(d) The number of periods taught by each teacher will be according to the instructions issued by the Department. In case, a teacher teaches less number of periods than the prescribed number, his grant in aid shall be proportionally reduced." 4. It has also been held that since the suspension was ordered by the School, it is the responsibility of the School to pay the entire salary for the period in question to the said teacher. 5. Despite various opportunities, including the last opportunity granted on 12.10.2009, reply has not been filed and, thus, this petition is heard in the absence of reply. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case carefully. 7. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent No. 2 was placed under suspension by the School and subsequently terminated by the competent authority. The DPI (S) Punjab declined approval for the termination of respondent No. 2 and directed her reinstatement. At the same time, the DPI (S), Punjab, permitted the petitioner to recover the excess House Rent Allowance received by respondent No. 2. Even though the order of reinstatement has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the writ petition to that extent, but the fact remains that the DPI (S) Punjab as also the Appellate Authority had not totally exonerated respondent No. 2 from the charge of drawl of excess amount of House Rent Allowance against her. Even though the order of reinstatement has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the writ petition to that extent, but the fact remains that the DPI (S) Punjab as also the Appellate Authority had not totally exonerated respondent No. 2 from the charge of drawl of excess amount of House Rent Allowance against her. The action of the society to terminate respondent No. 2 has been set aside by the DPI (S) Punjab, primarily on technical grounds. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner society after termination of respondent No. 2, promptly made an application for grant of approval in accordance with law, but the DPI (S) Punjab, kept the matter pending with him since the year 1993. The DPI (S) Punjab decided the application only on 11.07.2001 i.e. after a gap of 7/8 years. The petitioner Society had no role for such a long delay and has been made to suffer for this period as well. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner Society has been dismissed in so far as the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 is concerned. However, the order of DPI (S) Punjab, for non payment of grant-in-aid has been set aside. Respondent No. 1 was required to consider all these aspects. From the impugned order, it appears that the delay caused by the DPI (S) Punjab, in deciding the application has been totally ignored. Even the reliance placed upon clause (d) of para 69 of the grants-in-aid rules, is misplaced. The said rule has no application to the case of suspension/dismissal of an employee. The action of the petitioner Society in suspending respondent No. 2 and later terminating her from service, cannot be said to be totally illegal or unwarranted. To the contrary, the order of recovery against respondent No. 2 justifies the action of the petitioner-Society. It is a different matter that despite this respondent No. 2 has been ordered to be reinstated. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that denial of grant-in-aid to the petitioner society is not justified particularly the State respondent has filed no reply to justify the impugned order. 9. For the reasons recorded above, present writ petition is allowed. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that denial of grant-in-aid to the petitioner society is not justified particularly the State respondent has filed no reply to justify the impugned order. 9. For the reasons recorded above, present writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1 State is directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner Society to the extent of 95 per cent in respect to the emoluments which are payable to respondent No. 2 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. No costs. Petition allowed.