JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. This order shall govern the disposal of both D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9489/2013 Rekha Dewani & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.30/2013 Kamla Bai Nayak Chowkidar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. as they involve the same issue and were heard together. 2. The petitioners-appellants in the cases have challenged the constitutional validity of word ‘aided’ appearing in Sections 16 and 29 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Act 1989’). They have also prayed that respondent No.3 Ramjidas Modi Vidya Niketan Society be directed to pay them the same salary which are being paid to staff belonging to similar categories in Government or Government aided educational institutions. 3. It is to be noted that appellants of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 30/2013 without challenging the constitutional validity of word ‘aided’ appearing in Sections 16 and 29 of the Act 1989 had prayed before the learned Single Judge for direction against respondent No.3 for payment of same scale of salary which the similarly situated staff are being paid in Government or Government aided educational institutions, but the prayer was not accepted and their writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.9.2012. Appellants, therefore, as mentioned above, in the present appeal have challenged the constitutional validity of the use of word ‘aided’. 4. Petitioners/appellants were appointed on different posts after due selection in the Seth Ramjidas Modi College for women which is being run by respondent No.3. According to them, Seth Ramjidas Modi College was earlier Government aided but with an ulterior to pay less salary to employees, the Management of college stopped accepting aid from the State Government. The petitioners/appellants submit that when the college was receiving aid, they were being paid salary equivalent to the salary paid to similarly situated staff in Government or Government aided educational institutions but after stopping of the Government aid, their salary have been reduced considerably. It is in this background, petitioners/appellants have filed the present petition and appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants has submitted that although petitioners/appellants do the same work as the staff of Government and Government aided educational institutions still they are illegally being paid much lower salary than them. It is in this background, petitioners/appellants have filed the present petition and appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants has submitted that although petitioners/appellants do the same work as the staff of Government and Government aided educational institutions still they are illegally being paid much lower salary than them. Counsel further submitted that object of the Act, 1989 is to provide for better organisation and development of the education in the Non-Government Educational Institutions in the State of Rajasthan but with the use of word ‘aided’ in Sections 16 and 29, the purpose is defeated. He also submitted that when Section 29 declares scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institution shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to similar categories in the Government institution, there is no reason as to why only employees of private unaided institutions should be denied salary and allowances of the Government institutions. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that if the pay and allowances of the employees of private institution such as respondent No.3 are not made same as that of pay and allowances of similarly situated staff of the Government and Government aided educational institutions, employees of private unaided institutions will suffer discrimination and the right to equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution will be violated. Learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 707 wherein Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act which made the provisions of Section 10 providing for parity of schools of pay and allowances of the employees of the recognised private schools with that of the schools run by the appropriate authority inapplicable to unaided minority institutions was held as discriminatory by the Supreme Court. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand vehemently defended the validity of Sections 16 and 29 of the Act, 1989. He also submitted that the issue raised by the learned counsel for petitioners/appellants has been well answered by the Supreme Court in Satimbla Sharma and Others v. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 760. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has reiterated the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 7. He also submitted that the issue raised by the learned counsel for petitioners/appellants has been well answered by the Supreme Court in Satimbla Sharma and Others v. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 760. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has reiterated the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 7. It is true that Act, 1989 provides for better organisation and development of the education in the non-government educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan. And there are large number of educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan; some are owned by the Government, some receive aid from the Government and some do not receive any such aid. In Section 2(a) 'aid' means any aid granted to a recognised educational institution by the State Government. Likewise, in Section 2(b) 'aided institution' means a recognised institution which is receiving aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government. The college in question with which petitioners/appellants are concerned, does not receive any aid from the State Government. 8. The relevant sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, 1989 which deals with the power of the State Government to regulate the terms and conditions of employment reads as under : - (1) The State Government may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service, including conditions relating to qualifications, pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of leave, conduct and discipline, of persons appointed as employees of aided institutions in the State : Provided that the rights and benefits accruing to an employee of an existing institution under the grant-in-aid rules in force at the commencement of this Act shall not be varied to the disadvantage of such employee : Provided further that every such employee shall be entitled to opt for such terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him immediately before the commencement of this Act. Provided also that, irrespective of the age of retirement prescribed, action may be taken for compulsory retirement of such an employee after completion of 25 years of service or on attainment of the age of 50 years whichever is earlier, in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed." (emphasis supplied) 9. Section 29 of the Act 1989 provides for pay and allowances of employees. Section 29 of the Act 1989 provides for pay and allowances of employees. Its relevant sub-section (1) is as follows : - (1) The scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institution shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to similar categories in Government institutions. (emphasis supplied) 10. From the reading of above-quoted Sections 16 and 29 of the Act, 1989 it becomes clear that the State Government is empowered to regulate the recruitments and conditions of service including pay etc. of persons appointed as employees of only aided institutions in the State. And that scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institution only shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff pertaining to similar categories in Government institutions. In the result, the Management of an unaided educational institution is not under a statutory obligation to pay its employees the same scale of pay which employees of similar categories in Government institutions or aided institutions are being paid. In the case of Satimbla Sharma and others (supra), exactly the same controversy was dealt with by the Supreme Court and it held that unaided private schools are not State within the meaning of Article 36 read with Article 12 of the Constitution and as the obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work in Article 39(d) is on the State, a private unaided minority school (educational institution) is not under any duty to ensure equal pay for equal work. The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that employees of Government educational institutions are paid out of Government funds and the employees of Government aided educational institutions are paid mostly out of Government funds whereas the employees of private unaided educational institution are paid out of the fees and other resources of such institution. In this case, the Supreme Court has also held that decision in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association (supra), does not assist similarly situated appellants in any manner because the guarantee of equality is not available against an unaided private school (educational institution). In this case, the Supreme Court has also held that decision in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association (supra), does not assist similarly situated appellants in any manner because the guarantee of equality is not available against an unaided private school (educational institution). The Supreme Court has also clarified that Courts cannot issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to similarly situated employees of Government schools or Government aided schools because salary and allowances of employees of private unaided school is a matter of contract between the school and employees and is not within the domain of public law. 11. This being the settle legal position, the use of word ‘aided’ in Sections 16 and 29 of the Act, 1989 cannot be held to be violative of the Constitution. For the same reason, no mandamus can be directed against respondent No.3 to pay same salary and allowances to petitioners/appellants which are being paid to similarly situated employees in Government or Government aided institutions. 12. The petition and appeal have no merit. They are accordingly dismissed but with no cost. Writ petition and appeals dismissed.