JUDGMENT : T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. In this writ petition filed by the 22 (twenty two) Science teachers of the Ad hoc Aided Schools praying for a direction to the respondents to grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 14,100-27,510/- pm with all allowances etc. to the petitioners at par with that of the Assistant teachers of deficit system schools w.e.f. 01.01.2007. 2. The concise fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition is recapitulated. The petitioners were initially appointed as Science teachers in the different Ad hoc Aided schools in the Garo Hills in the State of Meghalaya. The names of their respective Ad hoc Aided schools and date of joining are shown against their names in the tabulation hereunder:- 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioners are working as Science teachers in the Ad hoc Aided High Schools affiliated by the Govt. of Meghalaya and these Ad hoc Aided High schools have been getting Grant-in-Aid. Initially, the petitioners who were appointed during 1989-1990, were paid basic pay of Rs. 525/- pm plus DA plus annual increment from the relevant date of their joining as admissible under the rules by the Govt. of Meghalaya, which was at par with that of the Assistant teachers of deficit system schools of Meghalaya. The pay components of the petitioners up to 29.02.1992 are consists of Basic + DA + Annual Increment. After 1991, on the recommendation of Meghalaya Pay Commission, their basic pay was enhanced to Rs. 1700/- pm plus DA as admissible w.e.f. 01.03.1992 with annual increment @ Rs. 50/-and this type of pay structure was continued up to 28.02.2001 and subsequently, the annual increment had been stopped w.e.f. 2000. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Meghalaya Pay Commission, the basic pay of the petitioners were raised to Rs. 5100/-pm plus DA as admissible w.e.f. 01.03.2001 but no increment thereafter and that pay structure was continued up to February, 2006. But suddenly, w.e.f. 01.01.2011, the pay scale of the petitioners was reduced to fix pay of Rs. 9000/- pm only. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners in the writ petition that since the petitioners are also performing the same functions and duties of Science teacher of the Govt. But suddenly, w.e.f. 01.01.2011, the pay scale of the petitioners was reduced to fix pay of Rs. 9000/- pm only. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners in the writ petition that since the petitioners are also performing the same functions and duties of Science teacher of the Govt. schools/deficit system schools, they are also entitled to enjoy their pay scale at parity with the pay scale of the Science teachers of the Govt. schools/deficit system schools. Mr. M Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the educational qualifications of the present writ petitioners are equivalent with the educational qualifications of the Science teachers of the Govt. schools/deficit system schools. The Govt. of Meghalaya, Directorate of School Education & Literacy issued an order dated 23.02.2011, that in the budget for 2010-2011 for enhancement of renewal grant to Science teacher in 123 (one hundred twenty three) Ad hoc Aided Secondary Schools of West Garo Hills at a lump sum of Rs. 9000/- pm per teacher per school w.e.f. 01.01.2011 for a period of two months w.e.f. 01.01.2011 to 28.02.2011 as per list enclosed therein had been granted. For easy reference, the said order dated 23.02.2011 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:- Directorate of School Education & Literacy, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong. Subject:-Enhancement of Renewal of fund for maintenance recurring grant-in-aid to Science teachers in existing Adhoc-Aided/Permitted Secondary Schools during 2010-2011. ORDER Ref:-Letter No. EDN 228/2006/103 dated 23rd Feb 2011. Sanction to an expenditure of Rs. 22,32,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakhs thirty two thousand) only is hereby accorded and fund placed at the disposal of the Inspector of Schools, West Garo Hills, Tura under the Head of Account "2202-General Education 02 Secondary Education 110-Assistance to Non-Govt. Secondary Schools (09) Improvement facilities for reaching of Science in High Schools 31 grant-in-aid Plan General. In the budget for 2010-2011 for enhancement of renewal grant to Science teacher in 123 (one hundred twenty three) Ad hoc Aided Secondary Schools of West Garo Hills at a lump sum of Rs. 9000/- pm per teacher per school w.e.f. 01.01.2011 for a period of two months w.e.f. 01.01.2011 to 28.02.2011 as per list enclosed. The Grant is subject to the following conditions which must be strictly adhered to:- 1. a) The Inspector of Schools should submit a statement in duplicate showing the distribution of grant, Name of teachers etc. 9000/- pm per teacher per school w.e.f. 01.01.2011 for a period of two months w.e.f. 01.01.2011 to 28.02.2011 as per list enclosed. The Grant is subject to the following conditions which must be strictly adhered to:- 1. a) The Inspector of Schools should submit a statement in duplicate showing the distribution of grant, Name of teachers etc. He is also requested to ensure that the unspent amount, if there is any may be intimated to this office for further instruction. b) Before release of the grant, he should satisfy himself that the Science teacher is in position during the period of the grant and the certificates, mark sheets, signature duly attested by him are kept in his custody for onward transmission. Verification that the teacher is in position in the school may be done by the District Science Supervisor attached to his office. c) Newly appointed teacher should be produced before respective Inspector of Schools within one month from the date of joining, the teacher must be a graduate in Science with Mathematics as one of the subject/must have passed Mathematics at P.U. (Sc./H.S.S.L.C. (Science). The verification of Certificates, signature, etc, and his name with particulars to be sent to the DSEL for record before release of the grant to the Schools. The grant should not be released at all if the teacher is other than the one shown in the sanction. d) The Inspector of Schools shall ensure that all the Schools have a Science Room/Laboratory and the Science teacher shall conduct demonstrations, experiments etc. regularly so that students obtain maximum benefit. A register of Practical Classes should be maintained so as to record about the time, date, classes, where such demonstrations classes being conducted. e) The Utilization Certificate together with the expenditure statement and APR duly signed by the teacher on revenue stamp in prescribed proforma for all grants already sanctioned to each Schools in current/previous, years may be forwarded in duplicate to this office for onward transmission to the Higher Authorities concerned, failing which no further grants will be sanctioned to any defaulter in future. ANNEXURE (Rupees twenty two lakhs thirty two thousand) only. Sd/- Addl. Inspector (Science) Directorate of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Govt. of Meghalaya after taking into consideration of the bounden duty of the State Govt. ANNEXURE (Rupees twenty two lakhs thirty two thousand) only. Sd/- Addl. Inspector (Science) Directorate of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Govt. of Meghalaya after taking into consideration of the bounden duty of the State Govt. under Article 21A of the Constitution to impart primary, secondary education to the schools, had sanctioned the posts of Science teachers in the Ad hoc Aided Schools and the Govt. of Meghalaya when sanctioning the posts for Science teachers, it is clearly indicated that the qualifications of the Science teachers for the Ad hoc Aided schools will also be the same as those of the Science teachers of the Govt. schools/deficit system schools. The Science teachers of Ad hoc Aided schools have the bounden duty to impart science education to the students by conducting practical classes as well as other (theory) classes. The Govt. also when sanctioning the posts of Science teachers in the Ad hoc Aided schools, it is clearly mentioned that the authority concerned i.e. the Inspector of Schools should verify and submitted a report as to whether Science teachers of the Ad hoc Aided schools are discharging their duties by conducting practical classes as well as other classes (i.e. theory classes). Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that Science teachers of the Ad hoc Aided schools are also discharging the same type of duties discharged by the Science teachers of the Govt. schools/deficit system schools and therefore, there should be parity of pay scale for the same types of work rendered by the Science teachers irrespective of whether some of them belong to the Ad hoc Aided schools and others belong to the Govt. schools/deficit system schools. 6. The respondents had filed their affidavit-in-opposition; in the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that there are three types of classes of school viz. (i) Govt. schools (ii) deficit schools and (iii) Ad hoc Aided schools. u/s 5 of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981, every application for recognition shall be addressed to the appropriated authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (i) Govt. schools (ii) deficit schools and (iii) Ad hoc Aided schools. u/s 5 of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981, every application for recognition shall be addressed to the appropriated authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed. In the prescribed form for application for recognition of the school, it is clearly indicated that no recognition shall be given by the appropriate authority unless the Institution has adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the Institution regarding payment of salary and allowances to its employees (Section 5(2)(a) of the Act of 1981). Therefore, it is the case of the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners' schools are the Ad hoc Aided schools and while recognizing their schools as Ad hoc Aided schools, the schools are required u/s 5(2)(a) of the Act of 1981, to show that the schools have the adequate financial provision. It is the further case of the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition that the State Govt. taking into consideration of the duty to impart primary, secondary education to the students, more particularly, science subject had sanctioned the posts of Science teachers in the Ad hoc Aided schools. 7. It is the further case of the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition that under the scheme for giving financial aid to the deficit schools and Ad hoc grant-in-aid schools, the funds are released to the schools and not to the individual teachers. It is clear from the submission of the learned Advocate General and also from the affidavit-in-opposition that the Govt. when releasing the funds to the Ad hoc Aided Schools and deficit system schools had taken into consideration of the numbers of approved teachers in the Ad hoc Aided schools as well as deficit system schools. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents also annexed a copy of the brief summary on school education in Meghalaya, Office of the Directorate of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. The relevant portion of the brief summary on school education in Meghalaya is quoted hereunder:- Office of The Director of School Education & Literacy Meghalaya Shillong A Brief Summary On School Education In Meghalaya Introduction School Education fall under the control & direction of the Directorate of School Education & Literacy, Government of Meghalaya There are two main sections namely:- (i) The Primary Section: This is sub-divided into: (a) Lower Primary (b) Upper Primary. (ii) The Secondary Section which is sub-divided into: (a) The Secondary Section (b) The Higher Secondary Section. ELEMENTARY Secondary & Higher Secondary Type/Categories of Schools: There are 6(six) Categories of Schools they are:- 1. Govt. Schools:-Fully funded by Govt. with all facilities due to Govt. servants. 2. Deficit Schools:-Teaching and Non-teaching staff get scale of pay just like Govt. Teachers, with no pension facilities but Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG)+ CPF facility @8% of the Basic Pay per head per month. Copy of Bringing of High M.E.-Schools under deficit system of grant-in-aid & Govt. Notification enclosed at 'A'. 3. Deficit Higher Secondary Schools:-Teaching & Non-Teaching Staff get Scale of pay just like Govt. Teachers with no pension facilities but DCRG & @8% of the Basic per head per month. No. of schools-17 with 186 staff Govt. Order at B'. 4. Ad hoc Higher Secondary Schools:-Teaching staff get a lumpsum amount @ Rs. 12,000/- P.M. per head, salary at present. No. of Schools 70 No. of staff-434 Govt. Order enclosed at 'C. 5. Deficit Pattern Secondary Schools:-Teaching and Non-Teaching staff get scale of pay but with only Basic Pay & DA and No. other allowances or facilities No. of schools-9 No. of staff-121 at 'D'. 6. Ad hoc Secondary Schools:-Teaching staff get a lumpsum amount Rs. 10,000/- per month per head as salary at present No. of schools-388. No. of staff-2163. Govt. Order enclosed 'E'. 7. School recurring Science Grant:-(Adhoc/Permitted Secondary Schools) These schools which received a Grant of Rs. 11,000/- per month, per head only for the science teacher of the Adhoc/Permitted Secondary Schools, as salary at present No. of Adhoc/Permitted Secondary Schools-525 & No. of teachers-526 teachers. Govt. Order sanctioned etc, enclosed 'F. 8. Purely Private Schools:-These are Schools fully run, manage and funded by Private Organisations/Societies/trust. Many good Schools in the State of Meghalaya are run by Christian Missions.......... On perusal of that summary of School Education, it is clear that the schools recurring Science Grant (Adhoc/permitted Secondary schools) will receive a grant of Rs. 11,000/-per month per head for Science teachers of the Adhoc/permitted Secondary schools as salary w.e.f. 01.01.2013. 8. Dr. JL Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners by placing heavy reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) K. Krishnamacharyulu and Others Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Another, AIR 1998 SC 295 and (ii) The Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Mrs. 8. Dr. JL Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners by placing heavy reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) K. Krishnamacharyulu and Others Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Another, AIR 1998 SC 295 and (ii) The Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Mrs. Rajni Vali and Others, AIR 2000 SC 634 strenuously contended that there should be parity of pay scale between the teachers of the Govt. schools and the teachers of private schools inasmuch as, both the teachers of Govt. schools and private schools are doing same types of work and it is also his further submission that there should be equal pay for equal work. Dr. JL Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on para 4 of the SCC in Krishnamacharyulu's case (Supra) and para 9 of the SCC in Chandigarh Administration case (Supra), which read as follows:- para 4 of the SCC in Krishnamacharyulu's case (Supra) 4. 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 a par with the government employees. The question is when there are no statutory rules issued in that behalf, and the institution, at the relevant time, being not in receipt of any grants-in-aid; whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable? In view of the long line of decisions of this Court holding that when there is an interest created by the Government in an institution to impart education, which is a fundamental right of the citizens, the teachers who impart the education get an element of public interest in the performance of their duties. As a consequence, the element of public interest requires regulation of the conditions of service of those employees on a par with government employees. In consequence, are they also not entitled to the parity of the pay scales as per the executive instructions of the Government? It is also not in dispute that all the persons who filed the writ petition along with the appellant had later withdrawn from the writ petition and thereafter the respondent-Management paid the salaries on a 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. 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 avail of the right to education. The private institutions cater to the need of providing 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 that element, the teacher, being 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 a 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 a par with government employees under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. para 9 of the SCC in Chandigarh Administration case (Supra) 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 Respondents 1 to 12 the same salary as is being paid to their counterparts in the privately managed Government-aided schools in Chandigarh in the circumstances is unassailable. 9. To the contra, learned Advocate General contended that the fact of the case in Krishnamacharyulu's case (Supra) Krishnamacharyulu's case (Supra) is entirely different of the fact of the present case inasmuch as in Krishnamacharyulu's case (Supra), there is an Executive instructions issued by the Govt. for enjoyment of the same pay scale by the private teachers at par with the Govt. teachers. But in the present case, according to the learned Advocate General, there is no Govt. instruction or Govt. for enjoyment of the same pay scale by the private teachers at par with the Govt. teachers. But in the present case, according to the learned Advocate General, there is no Govt. instruction or Govt. order that the Science teachers of the Ad hoc Aided schools shall enjoy the pay scale at par with the Science teachers of the Govt. schools. Learned Advocate General further contended that the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration case (Supra), had made a clear clarification that the proportion in which additional fund will be shared by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management of the School for payment of salaries of the teachers in private schools at par with the teachers of the Govt. schools will be in the ratio 95% to 5%. Learned Advocate General further reiterated that at the time of recognizing of the petitioner's schools, the respective schools had shown that they have sufficient funds. 10. The Apex Court in a number of cases held that the Lecturers of the private colleges should enjoy the pay scale not less than the basic pay of the Lecturers of the Govt. colleges. In the present case, the grant-in-aid released to the petitioners' Ad hoc Aided schools for payment of salaries is only at Rs. 11,000/- pm. Dr. JL Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the basic pay of the Science teachers of the Govt. schools is Rs. 14,100/- pm. In order to substantiate his submission, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2009 issued by the Govt. of Meghalaya, Finance (Pay Revision) Department (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) and contended that the said Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2009 clearly indicates that the basic pay of the Science teachers of the Govt. schools is Rs. 14,100/- pm. 11. Taking into consideration of the rival contentions of both the parties and also on perusal of the writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted directly by this Court inasmuch as it involves the policy decision of the Govt. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Govt. of Meghalaya to take a policy decision taking into consideration of the grievances ventilated by the petitioners in the present writ petition and also the principle of equal pay for equal work. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Govt. of Meghalaya to take a policy decision taking into consideration of the grievances ventilated by the petitioners in the present writ petition and also the principle of equal pay for equal work. However, it is made clear that taking into consideration of the decisions of the Apex Court in a number of cases, the State Govt. may grant as a financial aid at least to the extent of basic pay of the Science teachers of the Govt. schools i.e. Rs. 14,100/- pm as on today per teacher of the Ad hoc Aided schools or/to each of the petitioners from the date the Science teachers of the Govt. schools started enjoying the said basic pay scale. This direction is made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case after knowing quite well that the Writ Courts normally do not direct the authority to take decision in a particular manner, but this direction shall not be taken as precedent. It is left to the wisdom of the Govt. to take the policy decision indicated above within a reasonable period. But for extending the basic pay of the Science teachers of the Govt. schools to the petitioners, the decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.