Judgment :- Vikramajit Sen, Ag.C.J. 1. These Appeals filed by the State of Karnataka assail the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2011, directing the appellants to grant five stagnation increments to the petitioners with effect from 01.04.1996. The learned Single Judge has also directed that this Order should be complied with within three months. Regretfully, there has been no compliance till date, and instead these belated appeals have been preferred. Since the questions raised in this matter are of immense public importance, we think it expedient and prudent to allow the application for condoning the delay of 168 days. 2. The factual matrix may now be summed up succinctly. In December 1980, additional increments to Government servants who had continued in the same posts for more than fifteen years without any promotion was granted by the State of Karnataka. On 27.11.1985, the State of Karnataka extended the benefit of five stagnation increments to the employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions as well. On 16.04.1987 the State Government granted a revision of pay-scales to the Government employees which was again subsequently extended to employees of all Private Aided Educational Institutions also. The same position obtained vis-à-vis all these employees with regard to revision of pay scales in 1991/1992 as also in May 1994. In December 1998, the State Government-appellant again granted five stagnation increments to Teachers in Private Aided Educational Institutions as well as Government Primary School Teachers (February 1999). By a special Official Memorandum dated 14.07.2009, the said pay fixation was made effective from 01.04.1996 instead of 25.06.1998, but the petitioners i.e., the Teachers in Private Aided Educational Institutions were not bestowed this benefit. This led to filing of the several Writ Petitions bearing Nos.7935-47/2010 on 10.03.2010 which eventually came to be decided in their favour by the impugned Order thereby, extending the benefit of the said stagnation increments to the petitioners with effect from 01.04.1996. The State is dissatisfied with this position and has therefore filed the present appeals. 3. Section-87 of the Karnataka Education Act 1983 has been referred to by the learned Single Judge and it is reproduced by us for facility of reference: “87-Qualifications, conditions of Service of employees:- The State Government may after previous publication make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service (including rights as regards disciplinary matters) of the employees in recognized private educational institutions. Provided that the minimum qualifications for recruitment, age of recruitment and retirement and benefits of retirement for employees in educational institutions receiving maintenance grant from the State Government shall be the same as those applicable for the corresponding category of employees, if any, in State Institutions unless otherwise prescribed.” 4. The learned Single Judge has underscore that the qualifications for recruitment, age of recruitment and retirement and other retrial benefits are one and the same for all Teachers regardless of whether they were serving in Government Schools or in Aided Private Educational Institutions. Reliance has been placed on Chandigarh Administration –vs- Rajni Vali [2000] 2 SCC 42 wherein their Lordships have pithily opined that it is the duty of all the States in India to facilitate the imparting of primary and secondary education. It was in this backdrop that grant-in-aid to the private schools has been viewed by the learned Single Judge as a primary necessity and a Constitutional obligation which all States cannot ignore. We are entirely in agreement with this appreciation of law by the learned Single Judge. 5. The provisions of Section-87 of the Karnataka Education Act, it appear to us, are explicit in directing that discrimination between the employees in Aided Private Educational Institutions, and the employees in the State Government Educational Institutions is impermissible unless otherwise prescribed. The words “unless otherwise prescribed” must be construed to ordain identity or parity between all Teachers regardless of whether they are performing their duties in Government or Private School. Differences between these employees would be a notified exception and not the rule. 6. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate, on Section-49 of the Karnataka Education Act 1983 which we therefore shall also reproduce for ease of reference: “Section-49: Government to set apart sum for giving grant-in-aid to certain recognized institution: (1) The State Government shall within the limits of its economic capacity, set apart a sum of money annually for being given as grant-in-aid (hereinafter in this Act referred to as grant) to local authority institutions and private institutions in the State recognized for this purpose in accordance with rules made in this behalf.” Management of private Schools are statutorily cautioned that they should not presume full financial assistance from the State and accordingly should make necessary arrangement for defraying expenses from their own resources. The reality however which remains is that there is still an insufficiency of Schools seats and that but for private initiative in the field of education the majority of children would be unable to get educated. The emphasis on the aspect of the economic capacity of the State is also featured in Rule- 3(1) (b) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and conditions of services of employees in private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules 1999. 7. We are called upon to consider the legality of the Order of the Government of Karnataka dated 13.11.2009 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for affecting their parity with Government employees with regard to the payment of stagnation increments. Our attention is specifically drawn by learned counsel for the Appellant to paragraph- (d) of this Order, which we extract below:- “(d) As can be seen from (a) to (c) above, employees of aided schools and colleges are not entitled for parity with similarly placed Government employees in the matters of salary and other benefits; and are liable for discrimination depending on the financial capacity of the State Government. On the basis of its financial capacity, the State Government has allowed the benefit of five stagnation increments to the employees of aided schools and colleges with effect from 25.06.1998, the date on which Government Order No.Ed.35.STB.98 was issued, conceding to certain demands of the All India Teacher’s Joint Action Committee and rejecting certain demands of the said Committee.” This, according to Mr. Veerappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate sufficiently articulates the legal justification for creating the impugned discriminatory dichotomy by granting stagnation increments to Teachers in Government schools with effect from 01.04.1996 and those in Private Aided Educational Institutions with effect from a later dated viz. 25.06.1998. 8. A perusal of the provisions of Section-49 of the Education Act 1983 will disclose that it does not postulate the creation of a deliberate distinction and division between these two groups of Teachers. What it prescribes is that the quantum of grant-in-aid shall be dependent on the economic capacity of the State. Section-87 of the Karnataka Education Act which prescribes a definite parity between these two groups of Teachers in so far as minimum qualifications for recruitment, age of recruitment and retirement and benefits of retirement are concerned logically indicates identity of treatment to all Teachers. Section-87 of the Karnataka Education Act which prescribes a definite parity between these two groups of Teachers in so far as minimum qualifications for recruitment, age of recruitment and retirement and benefits of retirement are concerned logically indicates identity of treatment to all Teachers. Therefore, since both the sets of Teachers are similarly placed dealing with them differently/discriminately would definitely violate Article-14 of the Constitution of India. It would also militate against the principle of equal pay for equal work. The effect of Section-49 is that the grant-in-aid will be a relative to the economic capacity of the State. It does not sanction or ordain that the two sets of teachers should be treated differently, which appears to us to be the gravamen of the understanding of the Appellant in paragraph (d) of their order dated 13.11.2009. Assuming that the State Government is successful in substantiating that owing to financial stringencies it is unable to give grant-in-aid so as to cover the entire pay package of the Teachers in Private Aided Educational Institutions on part with their colleagues in Government schools, it may be for the shortfall whatever to be made up by the Private Institutions themselves. This issue has not arisen before us and therefore, we should not be understood as having giving a definite answer on this subject. 9. The State Government must establish that its economic capacity is not sufficient and adequate as to ensure parity of emoluments and financial benefits to all teachers working in the State. There can be no cavil that standards in Private Aided Educational Institutions are better than those in Government Schools. It would then be of travesty of justice if Government Teachers receive a pay package which is better than their counterparts in Private Aided Educational Institutions are better than those in Government schools. It would then be of travesty of justice if Government Teachers receive a pay package which is better than their counterparts in Private Aided Educational Institutions when it is the common perception that every aspect of discipline, teaching and examination results are appreciably better in the latter. Be that as it may, there is insufficient justification in the Government Order dated 13.11.2009 to the effect that the State Government does not possess financial capacity to treat all Teachers with similarity. Be that as it may, there is insufficient justification in the Government Order dated 13.11.2009 to the effect that the State Government does not possess financial capacity to treat all Teachers with similarity. We are dismayed in observing that Section-49 has been misconstrued altogether as vesting discretion in the State Government to initiate and perpetuate inequalities between Teachers serving the State. This is not the wisdom of the legislature, or the intendment of the statute. 10. The Appellants-State is mandatorily bound to prove their financial incapacity in treating all Teachers in the State with equality. There is nothing in paragraph-(d) extracted above, which categorically and indisputably establishes that the State Government, because of a resource crunch, is unable to ensure identical pay packages and benefits to all Teachers in the State. On the contrary, there is no legal foundation for predicating that Rule-3(1) (b) empowers the introduction of inequality in remuneration and pecuniary benefits to the Teachers of the Private Aided Educational Institutions. Law enjoins that Government Orders must be precise and comprehensive; it should speak for itself completely. We reminded of the extracted enunciation of law contained in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 which the Court should never tire from reiterating. “The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) (at p.18): “Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older”. This extract has more recently been reiterated in Bangalore Development Authority –vs- R. Hanumaiah (2005) 12 SCC 508. 11. We are of the firm conviction that paragraph-(d) of the Order dated 13.11.2009 (supra) does not contain the requisite information and details to substantiate the financial incapacity of the Appellant-State. What should have been clearly spelt out and vindicated is that the financial incapacity of the State inhibits it from allowing the benefits of five stagnation increments to employees of aided schools with effect from 01.04.1996 i.e., as has been granted to the Teachers employed in Government schools. The law permits unequal treatment in certain circumstances, provided it is clearly and unquestionably proven. For these manifold reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Appeals filed by the State are devoid of merit. The Appeals are accordingly dismissed. We are compelled to emphasize that in the impugned Judgment, compliance was ordered to be made within three months. In view of the dismissal of writ appeals, IA.2/2011, IA.3/2011 and IA.4/2011 do not survive for consideration.