JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity and correctness of the resolution of the Jawaharlal Nehru Manipur Dance Academy, Imphal (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent Academy”) passed in its meeting on 20-05-2015 and has also prayed for issuing an appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,45,200/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand and two hundred). 3.1 According to the petitioner, he is an employee of the respondent Academy and is working, at present, as a Section Officer with the charge of Personnel Assistant to the Director of the respondent Academy. 3.2 Sometime in the month of March, 2015, the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi desired to sponsor a group of 12-members of the respondent Academy to participate in the Festival “Namste Kazakstan and Namaste Uzbekistan” to be held from 2nd April to 8th April, 2015 and for that purpose, the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi offered a proposal vide its letter dated 26-03-2015 in the form of Terms and Conditions for Cultural Promotion Abroad wherein the rates of honorarium to be paid by it are specifically provided and according to the said terms and conditions, Rs. 20,000/- per day was to be paid to the group leader and Rs. 4,000/- per day each to all other group members. The terms and conditions were accepted by the petitioner being the leader of the group and after the said terms and conditions having been accepted by the petitioner, the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi arranged flight tickets for the said group. In order to participate in the said festivals, the group left Delhi for Kazakhstan on 11-04-2015 and they presented Pung Cholom, Dasavarta, Thang-Ta, Dhol Cholom etc. which were appreciated by the audiences of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Since the group had successfully participated in the said Festivals as per the terms and conditions, the Programme Director, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi sent a cheque of Rs. 4,22,200/- (rupees four lakh twenty two thousand and two hundred) being the fees for the members of the group, along with its letter dated 08-05-2015, drawn in favour of the respondent Academy, Imphal. 4,22,200/- (rupees four lakh twenty two thousand and two hundred) being the fees for the members of the group, along with its letter dated 08-05-2015, drawn in favour of the respondent Academy, Imphal. 3.3 After the receipt of the said amount by way of a cheque, a meeting of the Gurus and Officers of the respondent Academy was held on 20-05-2015 wherein the mode of distribution of the programme fee was discussed and it was decided in the meeting to categorise the group into three for purpose of payment and the Programme Officer of the respondent Academy was asked to calculate the rate applicable to each group after deducting 20% of the total remuneration as revenue of the respondent Academy. Being aggrieved by the said decision taken in the said meeting, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, respondent Academy to reconsider it and to make the full payment in the interest of the employees. According to the petitioner, the said representation was not considered at all and is pending for disposal. Having no option left with the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition on the inter-alia ground that as per the terms and conditions accepted by the petitioner, he was entitled to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) per day and after deduction of 10% as TDS, the petitioner was entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,26,200/- (Rupees one lakh twenty six thousand and two hundred); that the said decision taken by the respondent Academy was not approved by its Advisory Committee and that once the amount had been sanctioned by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi, the same became the property of the petitioner and the other members of the group. 4. 1,26,200/- (Rupees one lakh twenty six thousand and two hundred); that the said decision taken by the respondent Academy was not approved by its Advisory Committee and that once the amount had been sanctioned by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi, the same became the property of the petitioner and the other members of the group. 4. To contest the writ petition, an affidavit on behalf of the respondent Academy was filed wherein it is stated that there is a standing order dated 07-07-1999 of the respondent Academy whereby 50% of the performance fee of the Foreign Tour was to be deposited to respondent Academy; that since the said order had not been challenged by the petitioner, he was bound by it; that the mode of payment was decided by the respondent Academy in its meeting held on 20-05-2015 and accordingly, the payment was made and therefore, the petitioner being an Artist employee of the respondent Academy could not claim further performance fee, as it had incurred expenditure towards the payment for materials and items for performance in the said Festivals. 5. Admittedly, the respondent Academy is a registered society and a constituent unit of Sangeet Natak Academy, New Delhi, an autonomous body of the Ministry of Culture, Government of India. The respondent Academy being an institution and legal entity discharging and performing public function, has to act fairly and reasonably in accordance with its rules and regulations. However, it appears that its rules and regulations are silent as to how the payment of fees to its employee on account of their cultural performance in the country or abroad, is to be made by it and that no specific rules and regulations in that regard have been framed by it so far. The stand of the respondent Academy, as reflected in its affidavit, is that there is a standing order dated 07-07-1999 issued by its Director as regards the payment of fees to its employees and the same was issued pursuant to a resolution adopted in its meeting held on 16-03-1999. On perusal of the said order dated 07-07-1999, it is evident that daily allowance on cultural tour was revised from Rs. 60/- to Rs. On perusal of the said order dated 07-07-1999, it is evident that daily allowance on cultural tour was revised from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 100/- and 50% of the performance fee from foreign cultural tour was to be deposited to the respondent Academy as revenue and the remaining was to be distributed amongst the members of the cultural troupe. It is nowhere mentioned in the said order dated 07-07-1999 as to how the remaining amount was to be calculated and distributed amongst them. 6. As regards the facts of the present case, a decision of the respondent Academy was taken in a meeting held on 20-05-2015 with regard to the mode of distribution of the performance fee to the effect that the group be categorised into three - A, B. C and the Programme Officer, respondent Academy was asked to calculate the rate applicable to each group after deducting 20% of the total remuneration as revenue. But as seen above, the mode of calculating the rate is not mentioned at all in the said decision/resolution. It was left with the wisdom of the Programme Officer without any guideline being laid down by the respondent Academy. The contention of Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that although the petitioner was entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,26,200/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per day as per the terms and conditions agreed between the petitioner as the group leader and the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi, he was given only Rs. 33,500/- without any basis. His contention has some force and substance. In fact, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the said decision/resolution in the petition as a whole but during the course of hearing, the learned council appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner will have no grievance provided the petitioner is given the performance fee calculated based on the said terms and conditions of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi after deducting 20% as revenue of the respondent Academy. Moreover, from the materials placed on record, it appears that the said standing order dated 07-07-1999 had not been followed through out for the reason that it simply provided that 50% of the performance fee was to be deposited to the respondent Academy and that as and when such performance fee was to be distributed amongst the members of the group, appropriate decision in respect thereof was taken by the respondent Academy from time to time. There is no material placed on record to show as to what did the respondent Academy do during the last 25 years since the year 1999 as regards the distribution of such performance fee and the rate for calculating the total amount. It further appears in this regard that there had been no uniform norm applicable in all cases. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that in the absence of any rules and regulations as to how the rate of payment of performance fee is to be calculated, the respondent ought to have calculated the rate in accordance with the said terms and conditions of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi which were accepted by the petitioner as a group leader and payment ought to have been made accordingly. Since the respondent Academy has failed to do so, its action is unfair and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the decision/resolution of the respondent Academy adopted in its meeting held on 20-05-2015 cannot and need not be quashed as a whole. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 583 of 2015 is partly allowed with the direction that the respondent Academy shall calculate the total amount to be paid to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Indian Council for Cultural relations, New Delhi which have been accepted by the petitioner as group leader and pay his performance fee, accordingly, after deducting 20% thereof as the revenue of the respondent Academy from the amount so calculated by it. The exercise shall be done by the respondent Academy within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.