JUDGMENT : 1. The office reports that there is delay of 390 days in filing the Special Appeal. The delay has been explained, on the ground that Late Shri Vijay Singh, Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition had fallen ill, and thereafter unfortunately, expired. The file was collected from his office for filing this Special Appeal, after which the Special Appeal was filed, without any further delay. 2. The delay has been sufficiently explained, and accordingly, condoned, and the matter was heard. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. The appellant is an educational Institution. A writ petition was filed by it for the arrears of grant-in-aid, payable to the Institution under the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grand in Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay for Government Colleges Teachers including Librarians and PTIs ) Rules, 2009 and Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay-scales) Rules, 2009, which was not fully paid to the Institution. In the prayers made in the writ petition, a direction was sought, to release the deficit grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner, with respect to the financial year 1993-94 to 2009-10, with interest @ 18% per annum, to provide proportionate grant-in-aid to the petitioner to extend the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme to its teaching staff, to provide the proportionate grant-in-aid to the petitioner for extending benefits of privilege leave to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioner, to release the proportionate grant-in-aid for due fixation of the pay scales of the employees of the Institution, as per the Rules of 2009, till they are absorbed in the service of the Government, alongwith interest, to declare that the petitioner-Institution is not under an obligation to fix the pay scales of the employees as per the Rules of 2009; and any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 4. At the time of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment dated 25.10.2010 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2475/2006 (Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalaya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which was upheld by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 27.08.2010 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.02696/2009 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyala, Udaipur). State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which was upheld by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 27.08.2010 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.02696/2009 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyala, Udaipur). Learned counsel appearing for the respondent admitted that the issues are covered by the judgments in the aforesaid writ petition, and consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the six directions were given, which were given in the earlier writ petition, with further direction that the entire exercise for grant of approval and release of the grant-in-aid may be completed within three months. 5. The directions given by learned Single Judge included arrears resulting from enhancement of salaries under the 6th Pay Commission paid to the employees, as a result of revision of pay scales in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998, and the arrears on account of proportionate grant-in-aid; the arrears of Dearness Allowance to its employees, as a result of grant of additional installment of Dearness Allowance; the amount of selection grades admissible to the employees under the order dated 25.01.1992, and leave encashment, for which they were entitled at par with employees of the State Government, to be paid to the appellant. 6. An application for review was filed, alleging that there was deficit in arrears of grant-in-aid from 1993-94, and for that purpose, reliance was placed on another judgment of the Court. The review petition was rejected on 08.11.2013, giving rise to this Special Appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has not considered the deficit in arrears from the year 1993-94, to be paid to the College, and had simply relied upon the earlier judgment, in which the question of any deficit was not raised. 8. We have examined the documents annexed to the writ petition, and do not find that there was any demand raised, with regard to the deficit of grant-in-aid and the consequential arrears to be paid to the institution. The letter dated 07.12.2011 refers to deficit from 2001-02 to 2009-10 of Rs.5200299/-, which was demanded, and thereafter, a draft copy of the writ petition was forwarded to the respondents, to provide for the deficit of the arrears. 9. The letter dated 07.12.2011 refers to deficit from 2001-02 to 2009-10 of Rs.5200299/-, which was demanded, and thereafter, a draft copy of the writ petition was forwarded to the respondents, to provide for the deficit of the arrears. 9. We do not find that any argument, with regard to any deficit in the arrears of the grant-in-aid for 1993-94 or from 2001-2002, was raised, nor any such relief was pressed before learned Single Judge. Reliance was placed on a previous judgment of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.02696/2009 decided on 27.08.2010, and that, learned Single Judge granted relief in the same terms, as was granted in the judgment cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the review petition also, this question of deficit was not pressed, as there is no mention of such submission in the order passed on the review petition. 10. We find that the computation with regard to deficit does not tally with the demand. In fact, no demand was made for deficit of the grant-in-aid before the concerned department of the State Government. 11. We may also observe here that the grant-in-aid is by way of reimbursement to the amounts spent to the extent of 90%, to the educational institutions. The computation did not disclose that the amount was actually paid to the teachers, or spent by the College, nor any such averment was made in the representation made in the year 2011, and in the writ petition. The reliance on the judgment, in which only arrears under the 6th Pay Commission and other arrears were claimed, and for which learned Single Judge readily obliged by directing reliefs, including leave encashment etc. No further observation was made in the judgment. While arguing the review petition, once again the question of any deficit of arrears was not raised. 12. In view of the aforesaid, there is no good ground to entertain the Special Appeal. 13. This Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.