Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24308 of 1999. The respondents were working as teachers in various educational institutions, which were admitted to grant-in-aid, at different parts of undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. On representations made by them, all the three were deputed to work in Bhavan’s New Science College, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, which is an institution admitted to grant-in-aid. The corresponding proceedings were issued on 10.03.1996, 29.09.1995 and 19.04.1995 respectively by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. A specific condition was incorporated in the orders of deputation to the effect that the incumbent shall pay the leave salary and pension contribution to the Government as per the Rules in force. The respondents joined the institution and complied with the requirement as to payment. The condition as to payment of leave salary and pension contribution was imposed in terms of G.O.P.No.10, Finance and Planning (FE.FR-II) Department, dated 22.01.1993. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.88, Education (H.E-I) Department, dated 16.03.1999, directing that where a lecturer in a Government college is on deputation to an aided educational institution, he need not make payment of leave salary and pension contribution. The respondents attained the age of superannuation while working in Bhavan’s New Science College and were extended the retirement benefits also. Placing reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999, they filed W.P.No.24308 of 1999 and prayed for a direction to the respondents to refund the leave salary and pension contribution paid by them and award interest @ 24% per annum thereon with appropriate relief in the form of declaration in this behalf. Their principal argument was that the teachers working in a Government college and those working in a private college admitted to grant-in-aid are on par with each other and their service conditions are uniform. Hence, they wanted the condition to be waived in terms of G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999. The Writ Petition was opposed by the appellants. They pleaded that the said G.O covers the cases of the lecturers working in Government institutions and the benefit thereunder cannot be extended to the lecturers, who are not on the rolls of the Government colleges. Hence, they wanted the condition to be waived in terms of G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999. The Writ Petition was opposed by the appellants. They pleaded that the said G.O covers the cases of the lecturers working in Government institutions and the benefit thereunder cannot be extended to the lecturers, who are not on the rolls of the Government colleges. Through the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge not only directed refund of the amounts collected from the respondents, but also directed the Government to take a decision on or before 15.10.2010 to be uniform for all teaching and non- teaching employees in this behalf. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the deputation of the respondents was on their request and it was ordered strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of law that were in force at relevant point of time. He contends that for all practical purposes, the employee, who comes on deputation from one aided institution to another institution, enters a different unit of appointment and the condition as to payment of leave salary and pension contribution is contained in G.O.P.No10, dated 22.01.1993. It covers the entire gamut of the deputation of the employees. He further submits that G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999 covers only the Government lecturers, who were sent on deputation to aided educational institutions, and not the lecturers of private aided educational institutions sent on deputation to another similar institution. It is also his case that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are beyond the scope of the Writ Petition and would involve serious financial implications. Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in all respects ranging from method of appointment to the fixation of emoluments, lecturers in aided institutions are treated on par with lecturers in Government colleges and taking the same into account, the learned Single Judge granted the relief. He submits that there was no justification in imposition of the condition as to payment of leave salary and pension contribution while ordering deputation. Left with no alternative, the respondents accepted the condition while joining. But, their right to protest remain in tact. The basic facts that led to filing of the Writ Appeal are already stated above. All the three respondents were working in three different private aided educational institutions. It is on their request that the orders of deputation were issued. Left with no alternative, the respondents accepted the condition while joining. But, their right to protest remain in tact. The basic facts that led to filing of the Writ Appeal are already stated above. All the three respondents were working in three different private aided educational institutions. It is on their request that the orders of deputation were issued. The typical order of deputation reads as under: “In the circumstances stated in the reference read above, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education is pleased to sanction deputation to Smt.P. Indira Devi, Lecturer in English, Jawahar Bharati, Kavali, to work as Lecturer in English at Bhavan’s New Science College (eve), Narayanaguda, Hyderabad for a period of one year only from the date of joining duty at Bhavan’s New Science College (eve), Narayanaguda, Hyderabad subject to keeping one post of Lecturer in English vacant at Jawahar Bharati, Kavali till the incumbent is repatriated to her parent college. The incumbent has to pay the leave salary and pension contribution to Government as per rules in force.” To ensure that the uniform procedure is followed in the context of deputations, the Government issued G.O.P.No.10, Finance and Planning (FE.FR-II) Department, dated 22.01.1993. Clause 9 thereof reads “the foreign employer shall pay to Government Leave Salary and Pension Contribution at the following rates.” Several other conditions are imposed. For instance, under Clause 18, a deputationist is not permitted to accept perquisites, allowances or payments in any form in addition to or in modification of the terms indicated in the original order of deputation and that his service on deputation does not count for probation in the parent department. The respondents joined Bhavan’s New Science College on the basis of deputation and attained the age of superannuation. It was only on compliance with the condition, namely, payment of leave salary and pension contribution, they were permitted to join. It is after their retirement from service, they made an effort to seek refund of the amount paid by them. The basis indicated by them is the orders in G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999. A perusal of the G.O, which is filed in the material papers, discloses that it was not issued by the Finance Department and not even a reference was made to G.O.P.No.10, dated 22.01.1993, in it. If one takes into account the over-reaching exercise resorted to by the influential teachers, G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999, does not surprise any one. A perusal of the G.O, which is filed in the material papers, discloses that it was not issued by the Finance Department and not even a reference was made to G.O.P.No.10, dated 22.01.1993, in it. If one takes into account the over-reaching exercise resorted to by the influential teachers, G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999, does not surprise any one. It is just ununderstandable as to how the G.O.P has been issued without the approval or sanction of the Finance Department, when it has the effect of waiving of condition. Be that as it may, G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 16.03.1999 covers the cases where a lecturer in a Government degree college is on deputation to a private degree college, which is admitted to grant-in-aid. It is not even the case of the respondents that they fit into that G.O. They are only drawing parity on the ground that service conditions of both the categories of lecturers are similar. In the matters of this nature, it is ultimately for the Government to take a policy decision whether or not to permit deputation, if so, the conditions there for, or to waive any conditions. This Court cannot take such decision either directly or indirectly. Even where a case of discrimination is made out, the maximum the Court can do is to enable the concerned aggrieved persons to make representations. In the instant case, however, the learned Single Judge not only allowed the Writ Petition directing refund of the amount, but also directed the Government to act almost on same lines in respect of other employees whether teaching or non-teaching. We are fully convinced that the relief granted in the Writ Petition cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.