JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.01.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 640 of 2002. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the appellant has made a representation to the respondents for the release of grant-in-aid for High and Senior Secondary Wings on 06.09.1996. The same was not decided by the respondents. Petitioner approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 81 of 1997. The same was disposed of on 6th March, 1997. A direction was issued to the Director of Education to decide the representation. He decided the same on 11.04.1997. However, the petitioner was informed on 17.07.1997 that payment of Senior Secondary Wings was kept in abeyance due to pendency of S.L.P. No. 10980 of 1996. It is in these circumstances that the appellant filed C.W.P. No. 640 of 2002, seeking directions to the respondents to release the grant-in-aid to the Senior Secondary Wing w.e.f. 1st April, 1993. 3. The reply was filed by the respondents. The stand of the respondents is that the State has taken a decision to release the salary of eligible staff of +2 and High Wings vide communication dated 23.03.1999 and the same was clarified on 02.03.2000. In other words, the claim of the appellant for the release of grant-in-aid from 1st April, 1993 was not acceded to. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 04.01.2006. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the appellant-School is entitled to grant-in-aid for Senior Secondary Wings w.e.f. 1st April, 1993. According to him, learned Single Judge has erred in law as well as on facts by dismissing the petition on the basis of submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General. He finally argued that the grant-in-aid was to be released as per order dated 11th April, 1997 and the policy matter was not involved, as held by the learned Single Judge. 5. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 04.01.2006. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge carefully. 7. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 81/97. 5. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 04.01.2006. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge carefully. 7. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 81/97. The representation made by the petitioner on 06.09.1996 was directed to be decided by the Director of Education within a period of six weeks. He decided the same on 11.04.1997. The operative portion of the order dated 11.04.1997 reads thus: "Accordingly, I have considered the above representation with the provisions of law. As per list of 144 schools reflected in the judgment of Honble Supreme Court dated 10.05.1995 in Civil appeal No. 1233-34 of 1993, the name of this school figures in the list of Middle Schools. But on the perusal of Directory of Educational Institutions as it stood on 31.3.1992 from which the figure of 144 schools has been depicted, the name of this school have been shown as "Bharat Bhushan Memorial Middle School Indira Colony (Chhanwar) Recognized (now recognised Sr. Sec. School). It seems that the name of this school should have been included in the list of Sr. Sec. Schools instead of Middle Schools, as the school was running upto Sr. Sec. level at the time of publishing the said Directory. Therefore, I feel that this school might have inadvertently left out to be included in the list of Sr. Sec. Schools. If this factual error is rectified the number of 144 schools will remain the same by deleting it from the list of Middle schools and adding in the list of Senior Secondary Schools. Hence, the above representation is allowed for the release of 95% grant-in-aid for High and Senior Secondary Wings of this school also." 8. It is evident from Annexure P-2, dated 11.04.1997 that as per list of 144 schools reflected in the judgment of Honble Supreme Court dated 10.05.1995 in Civil Appeal No. 1233-34 of 1993, the name of appellant-School figured in the list of Middle Schools. However, on the perusal of Directory of Educational Institutions, as it stood on 31.03.1992, the name of the School has been shown as "Bharat Bhushan Memorial Middle School Indira Colony (Chhanwar) Recognized (now recognised Sr. Sec. School). According to the Directory, the name of the appellant-School was to be included in the list of Sr. However, on the perusal of Directory of Educational Institutions, as it stood on 31.03.1992, the name of the School has been shown as "Bharat Bhushan Memorial Middle School Indira Colony (Chhanwar) Recognized (now recognised Sr. Sec. School). According to the Directory, the name of the appellant-School was to be included in the list of Sr. Sec. Schools instead of Middle Schools, as the school was running up to Sr. Sec. level at the time of publishing the said Directory. According to the Director, the school might had been left inadvertently to be included in the list of Senior Secondary Schools and if this factual error was earlier rectified, the number of 144 schools will remain the same by deleting it from the list of Middle Schools and adding it to the list of Senior Secondary Schools. It is these circumstances that he allowed the representation for the release of 95% grant-in-aid for High and Senior Secondary Wings. This was the decision taken by the Director of Education on the basis of directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 81 of 1997 on 06.03.1997. Once the representation has been decided by the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, there was no question of issuing letters dated 23.03.1999 and 02.03.2000. These letters are contrary to the decision rendered by the Director on 11.04.1997. It is borne out from the order dated 11.04.1997 that the name of School was included in the figure of 144 as per Directory of Educational Institutions, as it stood on 31.03.1992. There was an error by excluding the School, which on the basis of the order of the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, was rectified and the School was included in the list of Senior Secondary Schools. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondents to release the grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1st April, 1993 to Senior Secondary Wing. The effect of order dated 11.04.1997 could not be diluted by issuing letters dated 23.03.1999 and 02.03.2000, whereby it was decided to release the grant-in-aid, prospectively. 9. The grounds on which the petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed, were not even taken in the reply. The issue has been decided conclusively by the order of Director of Education, dated 11.04.1997 and the same was to be implemented. 10. 9. The grounds on which the petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed, were not even taken in the reply. The issue has been decided conclusively by the order of Director of Education, dated 11.04.1997 and the same was to be implemented. 10. Learned Single Judge was wrong in stating that it was a policy decision to release the grant-in-aid on the basis of letters dated 23.03.1999, clarified on 02.03.2000 instead of letter decision dated 11.04.1997. The release of grant in aid was not dependent upon whether the salary has been released from the session 1993-94 to the teaching staff at par with Government employees, as has been held by the learned Single Judge on the basis of submissions made by Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made here in above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 04.01.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. C.W.P. No. 640 of 2002 is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the grant-in-aid strictly as per order dated 11.04.1997 for Senior Secondary Wing w.e.f. 01.04.1993 onwards, within a period of four months from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.