JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Original petitioner in WPS 2038/2006 retired on 31.07.1995. According to him, he was working as a Professor in Sh. Laxmi Devi Shraff Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Deoghar. It is contended that his service was pensionable and he is entitled to all retirement dues like pension, gratuity as well as arrears of salary and other service dues. On being aggrieved due to non-consideration of his grievance, he approached this court in the present writ petition, seeking payment of retirement dues with arrears like pension, gratuity, salary, etc. with interest. 3. Petitioner in WPS No. 1807/2009 superannuated on 31.07.2007. According to him, he was working on the post of Librarian in Sh. Laxmi Devi Shraff Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Deoghar. Petitioner contends that retirement benefits including service benefits and its arrears have not been paid. Therefore, he approached this Court for payment of retirement dues such as part contributory provident fund, pension, gratuity, compulsory insurance, etc. with interest. 4. Petitioners contended on 12.04.2012 that the issues concerning employee of Sanskrit Sansthan under Respondent No. 3 have been decided by a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court. By order dated 23.03.2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Respondent No. 2 Director, Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India to file an affidavit on the issue of payment of pension and post retirement benefits to teaching and non-teaching staff of the college in question in the light of what was decided by Kerala High Court in the case of K.P. Sreemathi vs. The Secretary and batch cases [W.A. No. 2542/1999 etc. with WPC No. 34583/2004, etc.]. 5. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed thereafter in WPS No. 2038/2006 by the Respondent No. 2 on 16.05.2018. Learned counsel representing the Respondent No. 2 has referred to the contents thereof and stated that against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by Kerala High Court in the case of K.P. Sreemathi , Union of India / Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan filed a Review petition. Hon''ble Kerala High Court considered the Review petition and held as under: "16. Learned counsel representing the Respondent No. 2 has referred to the contents thereof and stated that against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by Kerala High Court in the case of K.P. Sreemathi , Union of India / Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan filed a Review petition. Hon''ble Kerala High Court considered the Review petition and held as under: "16. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this bunch of writ appeals and writ petitions with a direction to the authorities concerned namely, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education under the Government of India and the Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi or such other competent authority to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. It will be open to the appellants/petitioners or their organization to submit a detailed representation, if so advised, before the authorities concerned highlighting their grievances. The representation shall be submitted within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment." Judgment is enclosed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. 6. Pursuant to the judgment, a committee was constituted by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan to review the Scheme and submit its report to the Ministry of HRD, Government of India for approval by the competent authority. Revised scheme was thereafter notified in 2012 to be effective from June 2012. According to the Respondent No. 2, the Scheme has an object to encourage Non- Governmental Institutions in order to meet a good part of the expenditure to sustain such efforts by Non-Governmental Institutions. RSKS is giving grant-inaid to some teaching and non-teaching posts in those Institutions to the extent of 95% and part of non-recurring expenditure. However, it is their stand that all persons so employed by these Institutions, shall be the employees of that particular Institution and not of Government of India or Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. They are merely supported by the Sansthan and would not compare themselves with the employees of Government of India or Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan in any circumstances. Provision under Clause 62 to 64 of the revised scheme of 2012 quoted thereunder, is also reproduced hereinbelow: "62. They are merely supported by the Sansthan and would not compare themselves with the employees of Government of India or Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan in any circumstances. Provision under Clause 62 to 64 of the revised scheme of 2012 quoted thereunder, is also reproduced hereinbelow: "62. The age of retirement of teaching staff in Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Academic staff in Adarsh Shodha Sansthan appointed following the UGC guideline and enjoying UGC Scales of pay will be (as prescribed by the UGC). Those who do not fulfill the UGC qualification will retire as per provisions of the previous scheme. The age of the retirement of non-teaching staff will be as per UGC norms. 63. Every employee working in regular capacity would be entitled to Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Every employee will also be entitled to gratuity on retirement. 64. No EPF and Pension will be admissible." 7. According to the counsel for the Respondents Union of India, petitioners cannot seek remedy on the basis of the judgment rendered in the case of K.P. Sreemathi as it has now been reviewed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners'' grievance have remained unredressed. The affidavit of the Respondent No. 2 however falls short of specifically stating as to the extent of grant-in-aid being given to the Institution in question. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 Principal of the college submits on the basis of the affidavit filed on his behalf that the gratuity amount and part of service dues have been paid and rest of the admissible dues will be released on getting grant-in-aid from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that the claim of the petitioners can be considered by the Institution on the basis of grant-in-aid given by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. 10. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the relevant material facts borne from the record, noted above. The status of the petitioners vis--vis Respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. They are not treated as Government employees, but purely employees of the Institution. However, as per the stand of the Respondent No. 2, grant-in-aid is provided to such NonGovernmental Institution to meet the expenditure towards teaching and nonteaching posts to the extent of 95% and part of non-recurring expenditure. They are not treated as Government employees, but purely employees of the Institution. However, as per the stand of the Respondent No. 2, grant-in-aid is provided to such NonGovernmental Institution to meet the expenditure towards teaching and nonteaching posts to the extent of 95% and part of non-recurring expenditure. Under the Scheme of 2012, such employees would be entitled to gratuity on retirement and Contributory Provident Fund benefits. Those who do not fulfill UGC qualification will retire as per the previous scheme. The age of retirement for non-teaching staffs will be as per the UGC norms. On the basis of the pleadings on record, this Court is not in a position to determine as to what amount under any of the post retirement or service dues is payable to the petitioners. It is also not clear as to whether grant-in-aid has been given by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan / Union of India to the Institution and for which period. 11. As such, it is deemed appropriate to allow liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation with all supporting facts and documents through the channel of Respondent No. 4 / Principal of the College to the Respondent No. 2 for redressal of their grievance. The Respondent Principal of the College while forwarding their application to the Respondent No. 2, may also incorporate its claim for grant-in-aid to the Institution which are admissible and have remained unpaid for certain period. Needless to say, on receipt of such representation, Respondent No. 2 would consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision within a reasonable time, preferably twelve weeks therefrom. If any grant-in-aid is outstanding and admissible to the Institution, it be released thereafter within a reasonable time. The Respondent Principal of the College on release of such grant would, in turn, release the admissible dues of the petitioners of course keeping in mind other subsisting admissible claims of employees of the Institution in a uniform manner. 12. Writ petitions stand disposed of. Pending I.As are closed.