JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.S. Massar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel as well as Ms. A.Paul, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC is present on behalf of the respondent No. 2 who did not submit anything and left the matter to the Court. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "The Petitioner is the President of the Greater Phulbari Area Deficit School Retired Teachers' and Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'Association'), which is a registered Association (duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) of the retired deficit School Teachers who during their period of service were posted in different deficit/aided Schools in the Districts of Garo Hills of Meghalaya. The said Association had been formed with a sole objective to look after the wellbeing of its members and to act as a platform for ventilation of any of the legitimate public problems (faced by its members) which is consistent with its objectives. The Petitioner herein, is an authorised representative of the said Association and stands subjectively before this Hon'ble Court; for espousing the cause of the members of the said Association in respect of the matter pertaining to the payment of pension or any form of gratuity to himself (Petitioner) as also the members of the said Association who are similarly placed as the Petitioner himself. That, the said Association consists of about fifty members of retired deficit school teachers and vide resolution dated 16th September, 2013 had authorised the President (the Petitioner herein) and the General Secretary of the Association to represent the Association in any manner pertaining to the realization of the demands of the Association and also for taking any necessary steps for redressal of the grievances of the members of the Association; whether be it by way of filing Writs, Revision, Representation, etc. It is apt to mention that the members of the Petitioner's Association as also the Petitioner himself who were previously employed under the deficit school teachers scheme of the State of Meghalaya ironically the rules governing the administration of the deficit grant-in-aid Schools are silent about the retirement benefits of these pillars of the educational system even though time and again representation after representation have been presented before the Respondent pleading consideration of this from the Respondent. Sometime in the year, 2009, the then Minister for Education, State of Meghalaya while addressing the two day 20th annual conference of Garo Hills Deficit School Teachers and Employees Association (GHDSTEA) had even assured that the Deficit School Teachers would be brought under the umbrella of the National Pension Scheme. This assurance by the Education Minister was reported in one of the local daily Newspaper - the Meghalaya Guardian dated 12th October, 2009. This assurance on the part of the Education Minister had raised the hopes of all the Deficit School Teachers and incited them to legitimately expect more from the Government, however, till date nothing has materialized and their (members of the Petitioner's Association) expectations has hit cold water. The members of the Petitioner's Association of which the Petitioner is the President; had served as school teachers of Deficit Schools in various areas of the Districts of Garo Hills. During their period of service, the teachers (members of the Association including the Petitioner) were paid directly by the State Government and had drawn salaries and allowances at par with the teachers directly employed by the Government and had performed the duties which (if not more taxing and demanding) can be equated and similar to the duties performed by the Government teachers, these include amongst other things; being deputed for election duties and being appointed as examiners in any examination conducted by the State Government (for the recruitment and empanelment) into various Departments of the State Government; including scrutinising and correction of papers therein. As such, their nature of the duty was at par with any of the Government teachers. This makes the members of the Petitioner's Association similarly placed in their nature of work with the government teachers. As such, their nature of the duty was at par with any of the Government teachers. This makes the members of the Petitioner's Association similarly placed in their nature of work with the government teachers. After an era of relentless service in imparting knowledge to the countless students of the District of Garo Hills thereby substantially contributing towards the upliftment towards the State as a whole the members of the Petitioner's Associations as also the Petitioner have been left in a lurch and in the fall of their lives these persons who were once the veins of the education sector are now side lined and left to fend for themselves by engaging in odd jobs just to sustain their livelihood. All other states of the country are providing pensionary benefits to the teachers and provincialization of Schools. However, the State of Meghalaya has earned the dubious name of this regarding the benefits provided to teachers at other States. This stand has been brought to the notice of the assembly time and again, however, it would appear that the Legislators are deliberately shying away from their responsibilities towards the individuals who spend almost half of their lives for the benefit of imparting knowledge and education. It is apt to mention herein that even elected representatives (be it MPs or MLAs) who spend just five years of their lives in the service to society and public are endowed with pensionary benefits, the Government has even made provisions for payment of pension to all aged citizens, yet the same government, refuses to acknowledge the service given by the teachers who form the backbone of the moral and intellectual growth of society. The petitioner begs to put it before this Hon'ble Court that in the absence of any provision of law to take care of the once dignified members of society working as teachers (members of the Petitioner's Association) are now being subjected to living a live of destitution and penury at the twilight of their lives while their contemporaries who had also been employed as teachers (save and except the fact that they had been placed under the Government) are at the fall of their live; living a decent life. This drastic discrimination to which the members of the Petitioner's Association are subjected to is not only irrational and arbitrary but inhumane in every aspect. This drastic discrimination to which the members of the Petitioner's Association are subjected to is not only irrational and arbitrary but inhumane in every aspect. Various memorandums placed before the Respondent have failed to even elicit any kind of response to the pitiful plight of the Petitioner and the Association for which he represents and aggrieved by which the Petitioner is left with no other recourse the Petitioner's Association has had to file a Writ Petition No (SH) 263/2012. While disposing off the Writ Petition vide Judgment and Order dated 15/02/2013, the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court was pleased to observe that the memorandum dated 18.03.2011 and 22.08.2011 are to be considered within a period of three months from the date of passing of the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2013. In pursuance to the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2013, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department had issued an Order No. EDN/CC.3/2013/99 dated 15.05.2013 whereby the said officer had dismissed the memorandum placed before him in a very nonchalant and nondescript manner. This act of disparity advanced by the State Respondent amongst the individual rendering valuable service to society aggrieves the members of the Petitioner Association, thus, left with no other alternative the members of the Petitioner Association had to turn for refuge to this Hon'ble Court to seek much needed justice on the face of the unwarranted discrimination meted out to them. Hence, this instant Petition." 3. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners argued that denial of pension to the deficit school teachers serving in the State of Meghalaya is nothing but discrimination. He also contended that the government teachers are getting their pension and other benefits after their retirement but in the case of deficit school teachers, they are not getting anything except the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). It is an admitted fact by the government that the teachers in deficit schools as well as government schools are giving the same service, rather some teachers in the deficit schools are giving better service than the government teachers. It is an admitted fact by the government that the teachers in deficit schools as well as government schools are giving the same service, rather some teachers in the deficit schools are giving better service than the government teachers. The deficit school teachers as well as the government school teachers are also assigned with other duties from time to time though government has taken the stand that the method of appointment is different in case of government school teachers and deficit school teachers as the deficit school teachers are appointed by the Managing Committee, but this fact is not correct. In that connection, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the 'Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981' as well as 'The Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965' which was adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya. Learned Sr. counsel also further contended that government is giving pension and other benefits to the MLAs and MPs who are serving only for five years, whereas teachers who serve for the society for many years are deprived of their legitimate right to get pension so that they can survive comfortably even after their retirement. He also further contended that the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation was prepared by the learned Members appointed by the Govt. of Meghalaya, therefore, the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission needs to be followed in letter and spirit and prayed for necessary direction. 4. Heard Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA on behalf of the State respondent who submits that there are three categories of schools (1) Government Schools (2) Deficit Schools and (3) Adhoc Aided Schools and the method of appointment are different. He also submits that in Adhoc and Deficit Schools, in genuine cases the teacher's services can be extended upto 63 years provided they are medically fit as per The Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965 which is adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya. He also relied on an order passed by the then Gauhati High Court dated 15-02-2013 passed in WP(C)(SH) No. 263/2012 and also referred to the Division Bench judgment dated 04-03-2015 passed by this Court in WA. No. 37/2014 and prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard also Ms. A. Paul, learned Amicus Curiae who endorsed the submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. No. 37/2014 and prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard also Ms. A. Paul, learned Amicus Curiae who endorsed the submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.S. Massar placed on record on 05-10-2018 and further submits that it is understood from The Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965 which was adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya where it is silent about the pension of the deficit school and college teachers, otherwise all terms and conditions are almost same with the government teachers. Learned Amicus Curiae also submits that for equal work equal pay should be made and pointed to the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation which was set up by the Govt. of Meghalaya. Learned Amicus Curiae also contended that Government is not to pick and choose the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission and she argued further that if The Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965 is analysed properly, both the government school teachers and deficit school teachers are directly or indirectly appointed by the Government and their appointments as well as terminations also requires approval of the Government. Learned Amicus Curiae to support her submission relied on (2017) 9SCC 379, (2008) 1 SCC 586 , (1982) 1 SCC 618 , (1983) 1 SCC 305 and (1973) 1 SCC 651 and also further argued on the judgment relied by the Government in the case of Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission & Anr. v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors (2017) 4 SCC page 449 and submits that the said judgment made it clear that there should not be any discrimination for the same work and referred to Article 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution as well as the Directive Principles of State Policy. She further contended that the teachers after their retirement are living in a very poor condition, rather they are starving and prayed that necessary direction may be passed. Learned Amicus Curiae further also submits that the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation should be implemented in letter and spirit without any pick and choose method. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Mr. D.P. Wahlang, IAS on the last occasion when he personally appeared before this Court submitted that the Government is not in favour of the entire recommendation. 6. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Mr. D.P. Wahlang, IAS on the last occasion when he personally appeared before this Court submitted that the Government is not in favour of the entire recommendation. 6. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.S. Massar further replied that in the earlier writ petition bearing WP(C). No. (SH) 263/2012 which is at annexure-5, the Court has simply directed to dispose of the representation of the teachers and accordingly the same was disposed of by an order dated 15th May, 2013 by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. Learned Sr. counsel further contended that such an important matter where the livelihood of the teachers are involved as well as the policy of the Government, a Government servant, may be a Senior IAS Officer has no authority to dispose of the representation, therefore, the question of resjudicata does not arise. He also referred to the judgment of Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission & Anr. v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors (2017) 4 SCC page 449 para 65 relied by the State and prayed that necessary direction may be issued. Learned Sr. counsel also further submits that for their own matters like the pension schemes for MLAs etc, they make it in retrospective effect and when the matter comes for teachers and others who are at the ground level working for the society day and night, in their case they apply the pick and choose method and is also in favour of prospective effect which cannot be allowed. 7. In contra, learned GA submits that there is no law to make provision for the pension of deficit school teachers. 8. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties referred above, I have gone through The Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981 wherein it is understood and appears that: Chapter I Section 3(iv) of the Act speaks about Competent Authority -"Competent Authority" means any person, officer or authority authorized by the Government, by notification, to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act for such area or in relation to such class of educational institutions as may be specified in the notification. Section 3(v) speaks about the Constitution -"Constitution" means the Constitution of India. Section 3(v) speaks about the Constitution -"Constitution" means the Constitution of India. Section 3(vi) speaks about the Director - "Director" means the Director of Public Instruction of Meghalaya or any other officer authorised by the Government to perform all or any of the functions of the Director under this Act. Section 3(vii) speaks about the Employees - "Employees" means a teacher and every employee working in a recognised school. Section 3(ix) speaks about the Existing School - "Existing School" means a recognised private school which is in existence at the commencement of this Act. Section 3(xiv) speaks about the Managing Committee - "Managing Committee" means the body of individuals who are entrusted with the management of any recognised private school. Chapter II Section 7 of the Act made a provision to Aid recognised schools which is reproduced herein below: "(1) The State Government may, subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, pay to the Director, for distribution of aid to recognised private schools, such sum of money as Government may consider necessary: Provided that no existing school, receiving aid immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall be eligible for the continuance of such aid unless it complies within such period as may be specified by the Director, with conditions specified in the proviso to subsection (2) of section 5. (2) The authority competent to grant the aid may stop, reduce or suspend aid for violation of any of the conditions governing such aid as prescribed. (3) The aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the school as may be prescribed. (4) No payment out of the aid given for salary, allowances and provident fund of the employees of the school, shall be made for any other purpose. (5) No aid shall be given to a school the management of which has been taken over under section 20. (6) No unrecognised school shall be eligible to receive any aid or other financial assistance from the Government." Chapter III Section 8 of the Act speaks about the "School property." Chapter IV Section 9 sub-section 2 of the Act makes it clear that subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority. Chapter IV Section 11 speaks about the "Salaries of Employees." Chapter V Section 13 speaks about that the Government may make rules regulating minimum qualifications for teachers of unaided minority schools. Chapter VI Section 18 sub-section 2 speaks that the School Fund and all other funds, established with the approval of the Director, shall be accounted for and operated in accordance with the rules as may be prescribed. Chapter VIII Section 22 of the Act makes a provision for Meghalaya School Education Advisory Board. Section 23 of the Act makes a provision for Delegation of powers. Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for Inspection of the Schools by the Government. 9. After perusal of the Act as referred above, I am of the considered view that in all government aided/adhoc or deficit schools, government has a direct role from the time of appointment till termination as well as interference in the management. Therefore, it is apparent that government cannot say that they have no responsibility for the pension of the teachers and non-teaching employees in government aided/adhoc and deficit schools. Now the question is raised by the learned counsel for the State that there is no provision in the Act for pension which is, in my view frivolous and intentional just to avoid their responsibility towards the teachers and the employees of the schools. 10. On further scanning of The Amended Assam Aided High & Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965 adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya, the method of recruitment is clear from Rule 4 which is reproduced herein below: "4. Method of recruitment: (1) Headmasters/Headmistresses.- (i) There shall be a State Selection Board consisting of the following, viz. (a) Director of Public Instruction, Assam - Chairman; (b) Additional Director of Public Instruction, Assam - Secretary. (c) Inspectors of Schools concerned - Members. (d) Two educationists to be nominated by the Government - Members. (ii) The Director of Public Instruction, Assam shall ascertain from various institutions concerned well ahead of each academic year vacancies that are likely to occur during the year and advertise in at least two newspapers and also in the Assam Gazette and forward to the Selection Board the applications received together with all relevant records indicating at the same time the number of vacancies and the names of the institutions involved. (iii) The Selection Board shall after the interview prepare a list or candidates in order of preference and shall forward the list so prepared to the managing committees of the Schools concerned. (iv) The managing committee shall make appointments after due verifications and with prior approval of the Inspectors of Schools concerned. Note-Special Pay. -Appointment of Headmasters/Headmistresses already in service but not confirmed shall be regularised in accordance with the conditions in Rule 5 Headmasters/Headmistresses not having the requisite qualifications and experience as set forth in Rule 5 if retained or take on for non availability or duly qualified persons shall get their grade pay and a special pay of Rs. 60 per month. The scale pay of Rs. 150-300 sanctioned in 1956 will be treated as grade pay for those Headmasters and Headmistresses who are enjoining it on 1st April, 1959 and are not eligible for the new scale of pay. Headmasters and Headmistresses on grade pay, shall, however, get a scale pay of Rs. 200-500 on attainment of the requisite qualifications and experience. (This taken effect from 15th February, 1961). (2) Assistant Headmasters/Assistant Headmistresses of High and Higher Secondary Schools:- (i) There shall be a Divisional Selection Board in each Inspectorate consisting of the following : (a) Inspector of Schools - Chairman; (b) An Assistant Inspector of Schools (to be nominated by the Inspector of Schools) - Secretary ; (c) One Headmaster (to be nominated by the Director of Public Instruction Assam) - Member; (d) One Headmistress (to be nominated by the Director of Public Instruction Assam) - Member ; (e) Two educationists (to be nominated by the Director of Public Instructions, Assam) - Members (ii) The Inspectors of Schools shall ascertain from various institutions concerned well ahead of each academic year vacancies in at least two newspapers and also in the Assam Gazette, and forward to the Selection Board the applications received together with all relevant records indicating at the same time the number of vacancies and the names of the institutions involved. (iii) The Selection Board shall after interview prepare a list of candidates in order of preference and shall forward the list to the managing committees of the Schools concerned. (iv) The managing committees of the Schools shall make appointment after due verification and subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools. (iii) The Selection Board shall after interview prepare a list of candidates in order of preference and shall forward the list to the managing committees of the Schools concerned. (iv) The managing committees of the Schools shall make appointment after due verification and subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools. (v) The managing committees shall have powers to fill up the vacancies for a period not exceeding three months subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools. (vi) The list of candidates shall ordinarily remain valid for one year from the date of selection. (3) Assistant Teachers. - The Assistant Teachers holding Bachelor's of Higher Degrees shall be selected through a test and/or interview to be conducted either by the Director of Public Instruction or by the Board of Secondary Education as may be decided by the Government from time to time. The Director of Public Instruction shall prepare a list of selected candidates in order of preference and publish the list in the Assam Gazette and forward it to the managing committee. The managing committee shall make appointments from a special list after due verification and with the prior approval of the Inspector of Schools concerned. The list of candidates shall ordinarily remain valid for one year. The managing committee shall have a powers to fill up vacancies even from outside this list for a period not exceeding three months subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools concerned. (4) Office Assistants. - The Managing Committee concerned shall after due advertisement in at least two newspapers make the appointments of Office Assistants subject to the approval of the Inspectors of Schools concerned." 11. On plain reading of Rule 4 of the said Rules, 1965, it is understood and clear that in the recruitment process also, government has a total role and that, they cannot deny. Rule 14 of The Amended Assam Aided High & Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965 makes a provision for Contributory Provident Fund. On scanning The Amended Assam Aided High & Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965, it is also clear and apparent that the government has control over the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools. Now, let me look back to the recommendation made by the Fifth Pay Commission. It appears that the Govt. On scanning The Amended Assam Aided High & Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965, it is also clear and apparent that the government has control over the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools. Now, let me look back to the recommendation made by the Fifth Pay Commission. It appears that the Govt. of Meghalaya constituted the Fifth Pay Commission on 1st August, 2016 with the following members: Chairman - Shri Peter James Bazeley, IAS (Retired), Former Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya. Members - Shri Uttam K. Sangma, IAS (Retired) Former Secretary, Ministry of DONER, Government of India. Shri Lambha Roy, IAS (Retired) Former Commissioner & Secretary, Planning Department, Government of Meghalaya. Smti Rebecca V. Suchiang, IAS Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Meghalaya. Officers - Shri Sanjay Goyal, IAS, Secretary, FMPC Shri D.B. Gurung, MFS (Retired), OSD, FMPC Shri Mariawan Lyngdoh, Deputy Secretary, FMPC 12. On perusal of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission, the Govt. of Meghalaya recommended under the caption of "Social Security for Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Deficit System of Grants-in-Aid/Aided Educational Institutions" and the same is reproduced herein below: "Social Security for Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Deficit System of Grants-in-Aid/Aided Educational Institutions 11.18.1 The Commission has received Memoranda and representations from various Associations of Aided educational institutions, i.e., Higher Secondary Schools, Secondary Schools, Upper Primary Schools and Lower Primary Schools including the Meghalaya College Teachers' Association that there is no Government Scheme on social security other than the Contributory Provident Fund at 8 percent of basic pay and Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity, subject to the maximum of Rs. 7.00 lakh. 11.18.2 During hearings of the aforesaid Aided Schools and College Employees' Associations, submissions have been made that they are left with little or no means for minimum livelihood after retirement from their services and are reduced to dire pecuniary conditions. The Commission underscores the fact that in the States visited by the Commission, the benefits of pension including family pension were fully extended by the State Governments to the teachers/staff of all the Deficit/Aided Schools and Colleges. This Commission is of the firm view that it is incumbent upon the State Government to appreciate the invaluable social contribution and educational services rendered by Deficit/Aided Educational Institutions. This Commission is of the firm view that it is incumbent upon the State Government to appreciate the invaluable social contribution and educational services rendered by Deficit/Aided Educational Institutions. Analysis, consideration and recommendation: (1) The Commission, therefore, recommends that the scheme of Pension and other retirement benefits in line with serving Government employees be considered and allowed as per the terms and conditions which may be specified for the purpose to all pre - 01.04.2010 teachers/employees of Deficit/Aided Educational Institutions and the benefits under the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (NPS) for post - 01.04.2010 teachers/employees of Deficit/Aided Education Institutions. (2) The teachers and non-teaching staff under the Deficit/Aided Schools and Colleges be brought under the fold of New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (NPS) from such date as may be decided by the Government. (3) The pre-01-01-2016 retired teachers and the non-teaching employees of Deficit/Aided Schools and Colleges be considered for the grant of a fixed ad hoc amount as Superannuation Relief at the rates as below:- (a) Retired Teachers of Deficit/Aided Colleges. Rs. 10,000/- p.m. (b) Retired Teachers and non-teaching staff of Deficit/Aided Schools and Non-Teaching Staff of Deficit/Aided Colleges. Rs. 5,000/- p.m. 11.18.3 The grant of the Superannuation Relief shall be subject to the following: (i) That each case shall be subject to audit certification/authentication by the Director of Local Fund Audit, Government of Meghalaya who shall examine and check the basic service records (Service Books) and other relevant records and documents including the order of retirement issued by the Competent Authority. (ii) The extension of benefits under the Social Security Scheme as above to the retired Teachers/Non-Teaching Staff of Deficit/Aided Schools and Colleges shall be subject to the condition that whatever amount of deposits on account of Management's contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund Account and the interest thereon of the concerned Teachers/Staff should accrue/be refunded to the State Government exchequer. (iii) The Social Security Scheme, as above, is personal to the retired employee and shall not be admissible to their family/next of kin once the beneficiary expires." 13. On perusal of the additional affidavit dated 14th September, 2018 it is really shocking that in one way the government is saying the matter is under examination and on the other hand, it is stated that the benefit will be prospective and not retrospective. On perusal of the additional affidavit dated 14th September, 2018 it is really shocking that in one way the government is saying the matter is under examination and on the other hand, it is stated that the benefit will be prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, I find that the affidavit itself is contradictory and such the affidavit cannot be relied upon. At the outset, I want to make it clear that our Constitution does not allow any discrimination in similar situated cases and also made the provision of equal pay for equal work. The Judgments, Acts and Rules relied are herein below: 1. Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission & Anr. v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 449 . 2. Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586 . 3. Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors (1982) 1 SCC 618 . 4. D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 . 5. State of Punjab & Ors. v. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 379 . 6. Purshottam Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1973) 1 SCC 651 . 7. The Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981. 8. The Amended Assam Aided High & Higher Secondary Schools Employees Rules, 1965 (Adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya). 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission & Anr. v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 449 in Clause 'B' observed that Education and Universities - Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions - Non-Academic Staff/Other Staff/Workmen - Power of State to regulate service conditions of non-teaching staff in unaided affiliated colleges - Pay-Revision - Classification for - Non-Teaching Staff of aided and unaided Colleges affiliated to Universities treated differently - Held, discriminatory. In Clause 'C' it observed that the Constitution of India-Article 14 - Classification-Discrimination-Remedial measure by Court instead of invalidating impugned law - Court by positive remedial action should eliminate factors which create discriminatory classification, instead of necessarily invalidating legislation or subordinate legislation as a whole, more so where object sought to be achieved is implementation of directive principles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 97 and 98 of the said judgment observed that: "83. The doctrine of equality has many a facet. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 97 and 98 of the said judgment observed that: "83. The doctrine of equality has many a facet. Law laid down by this Court on the interpretation of Article 14 in the last 70 years illuminated some of them. In a series of judgments commencing from E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. [ (1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165], the orientation of this Court in dealing with Article 14 has been dynamic. Mathew, J. in his dissenting judgment in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India [ (1972) 2 SCC 788 , pp. 844-45, paras 161-162] very precisely identified the question, which this Court should address while interpreting Article 14 : (SCC p.844, para 162)." "162. The crucial question today, as regards Article 14, is whether the command implicit in it constitutes merely a ban on the creation of inequalities by the State, or, a command, as well, to eliminate inequalities existing without any contribution thereto by State action. The answer to this question has already been given in the United States under the equal protection clause in the two cases referred to, in certain areas. The US Supreme Court, in effect, has began to require the State to adopt a standard which takes into account the differing economic and social conditions of its citizens, whenever these differences stand in the way of equal access to the exercise of their basic rights. It has been said that justice is the effort of man to mitigate the inequality of men. The whole drive of the directive principles of the Constitution is toward this goal and it is in consonance with the new concept of equality. The only norm which the Constitution furnishes for distribution of the material resources of the community is the elastic norm of the common good [see Article 39 (b)]. I do not think I can say that the principle adopted for the distribution [of newsprint] is not for the common good." Para 86 sub-para 65 reads as follows: "65. That is the end of the journey. I do not think I can say that the principle adopted for the distribution [of newsprint] is not for the common good." Para 86 sub-para 65 reads as follows: "65. That is the end of the journey. With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the Socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criterion: 'being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date' for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of 'being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date' in impugned memoranda, Exts. P-1 & P-2, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down. ... Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible. Let a writ to that effect be issued. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs." "87. When Mathew, J. declared that Article 14 interdicts the State from creating inequalities, he was stressing the obvious. Further, he articulated the remedial measures the State has been enjoined to take recourse to: eliminate the existing inequalities through positive-affirmative action, rather than passive neutrality." "88. What is the remedy open to the citizen and the corresponding obligation of the judiciary to deal with such a situation, where the inequalities are created either by the legislation or executive action? Further, he articulated the remedial measures the State has been enjoined to take recourse to: eliminate the existing inequalities through positive-affirmative action, rather than passive neutrality." "88. What is the remedy open to the citizen and the corresponding obligation of the judiciary to deal with such a situation, where the inequalities are created either by the legislation or executive action? Traditionally, this Court and the High Courts have been declaring any law, which created inequalities to be unconstitutional, but in Nakara's case [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] this Court realised that such a course of action would not meet with the obligations emanating from a combined reading of the directive principles and Article 14. Therefore, this Court emphatically laid down in Nakara's case that it is possible to give an appropriate inductive relief by eliminating the factors, which creates the artificial classification leading to a discriminatory application of law." "89. Though this Court is not bound by the law declared by the municipal courts of other countries, this court in the last 70 years always examined with due regard decisions of the American Supreme Court on questions of constitutional law. In a comparable situation, American courts did exercise jurisdiction by granting appropriate injunctive orders compelling the State to comply with the constitutional mandate by ignoring the legislative command and extending the benefit provided under a legislation to a certain class of people who were expressly excluded from receiving that benefit provided by the legislation. (See Plyler v. Deo)". "97. Even otherwise, if the appellants are obliged under law, as we have already come to the conclusion that they are in fact obliged, it is for the appellants to work out the remedies and find out the ways and means to meet the financial liability arising out of the obligation to pay the revised pay scales." "98. In the result, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed with no order as to costs." 15. On perusal of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is a constitutional mandate and that needs to be adhered in letter and spirit. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission advanced by the Govt. On perusal of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is a constitutional mandate and that needs to be adhered in letter and spirit. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission advanced by the Govt. counsel that pensionary benefits and other benefits should be given only to the government school teachers and staff and not to government aided/adhoc and deficit teachers and staff. We must remember that both in government schools and non-government schools, teachers are giving equal service and it will not be wrong to say that, rather in private schools the standard of education is much more better as the teachers in the private schools take their duties much more seriously. Therefore, they should get equal protection with the government school and college teachers. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586 para 12 observed that: "12. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" was originally propounded as part of the directive principles of the State policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle of equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be read under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This decision was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India. Thus, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has assumed status of a fundamental right." 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors (1982) 1 SCC 618 in para 8 has also taken a similar view. Para 8 & 9 of the judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Para 8 & 9 of the judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robberbarons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need', it must atleast mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need', it must atleast mean 'equal pay for equal work'. "The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g. Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western labour codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance" (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The preamble of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle 'Equal pay for Equal work' is deducible from those Article and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though these drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer." "9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the 'powers, functions and privileges of a police officer', their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the 'powers, functions and privileges of a police officer', their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not a principle which the Courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the drivers-constables of the Delhi Police Force atleast on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from 1st January, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect." 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 observed in para 12, 13, 14 and 15 was pleased to discuss elaborately the Fundamental Principles of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The same is reproduced herein below: "12. After an exhaustive review of almost all decisions bearing on the question of Article 14, this Court speaking through Chandrachud, C.J. in In re Special Courts Bill, 19783 restated the settled propositions which emerged from the judgments of this Court undoubtedly insofar as they were relevant to the decision on the points arising for consideration in that matter. Four of them are apt and relevant for the present purpose and may be extracted. They are: (SCC pp.424-25, para 72) "3. Four of them are apt and relevant for the present purpose and may be extracted. They are: (SCC pp.424-25, para 72) "3. The constitutional command to the State to afford equal protection of its laws sets a goal not attainable by the invention and application of a precise formula. Therefore, classification need not be constituted by an exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons or things. The Courts should not insist on delusive exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification in any given case. Classification is justified if it is not palpably arbitrary. 4. The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. 6. The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. 7. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act." "13. The other facet of Article 14 which must be remembered is that it eschews arbitrariness in any form. Article 14 has, therefore, not to be held identical with the doctrine of classification. The other facet of Article 14 which must be remembered is that it eschews arbitrariness in any form. Article 14 has, therefore, not to be held identical with the doctrine of classification. As was noticed in Maneka Gandhi's case1 in the earliest stages of evolution of the Constitutional law, Article 14 came to be identified with the doctrine of classification because the view taken was that Article 14 forbids discrimination and there will be no discrimination where the classification making the differentia fulfils the aforementioned two conditions. However, in EP. Royappa v. State of T.N, it was held that the basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. This Court further observed as under: (SCC p.38, para 85). From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment." "14. Justice Iyer has in his inimitable style dissected Article 14 in Maneka Gandhi Case as under at SCR p.728: (SCC p.342, para 94). That article has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, egalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory diktats. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness and ex cathedra ipse dixit is the ally of demagogic authoritarianism. Only knight-errants of 'executive excesses' - if we may use current cliche-can fall in love with the Dame of despotism, legislative or administrative. If this Court gives in here it gives up the ghost. And so it is that I insist on the dynamics of limitations on fundamental freedoms as implying the rule of law; be you ever so high, the law is above you. If this Court gives in here it gives up the ghost. And so it is that I insist on the dynamics of limitations on fundamental freedoms as implying the rule of law; be you ever so high, the law is above you. Affirming and explaining this view, the Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi held that it must, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. The Court made it explicit that where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14. After a review of large number of decisions bearing on the subject, in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza the Court formulated propositions emerging from analysis and examination of earlier decisions. One such proposition held well established is that Article 14 is certainly attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis." "15. Thus the fundamental principle is that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question." 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 379 was pleased to observe in para 26. The same is reproduced herein below: "26. The principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in Articles 38, 39, 39-A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part IV of the Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure a social order providing justice - social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimising monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections. Meaning thereby, if the State is giving some economic benefits to one class while denying the same to other then the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstances when both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by the State. Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary as Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of the 4th Pay Commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eye of the law if no reasonable justification is offered for the same." 20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purshottam Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1973) 1 SCC 651 in para 15 has observed that:- "15. Mr. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned." 21. After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsels and the records before me as well as perusal of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Acts and Rules as referred above as well as the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation, I am of the considered view that there is no place in our Constitution for discrimination and inequality. As submitted by learned counsel for the State that the method of selection in government schools are different as in government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges, therefore, teachers who are serving in the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges cannot claim the same benefits as government school and college teachers. The said submission is totally unacceptable and beyond the Constitution. The said submission is totally unacceptable and beyond the Constitution. As we all know the teachers both in government schools and government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges are giving equal service and duties. Therefore, the benefit rendered to the government school teachers should also be extended to the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and college teachers. It is true that the government has a right to have their own policy but no policy should be contradictory to the principle/concept of the Constitution of India. In this case, if pension is extended only to teachers of government schools keeping aside the teachers of government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges is nothing but arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of Inida and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 13 of the Constitution of India made it clear that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights shall be null and void. The question that remains is whether it should be prospective or retrospective. As submitted by the learned Sr. counsel, Mr. G.S. Massar that the MLAs are getting pension from retrospective effect, then I put the question to the government; Why not the teachers? We must remember that teachers are the backbone of the society and it is through their contribution, dedication and hard work which has moulded us to become what we are today; be it a Judge, a Minister, a Lawyer, a Doctor or an IAS Officer etc., and that, we can never forget. Though government has got the power to make a policy but such policy should not go against the common people's interest. We all know that the retired teachers and employees of the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges suffer due to non-availability of the pension and live a very uncomfortable inhumane life, some even die due to starvation and cannot get proper treatment due to financial constraints. 22. From the above discussions, I come to the conclusion that Govt. of Meghalaya must think seriously about the upliftment and security of the government aided/adhoc and deficit school and college teachers and they cannot just justify that the appointment methods are different between the government school/college teachers and government aided/adhoc and deficit school and college teachers. 22. From the above discussions, I come to the conclusion that Govt. of Meghalaya must think seriously about the upliftment and security of the government aided/adhoc and deficit school and college teachers and they cannot just justify that the appointment methods are different between the government school/college teachers and government aided/adhoc and deficit school and college teachers. It is not at all acceptable and not sustainable in the eye of law because both the classes of teachers are giving equal service to the society. Therefore, the State respondent is directed to apply the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation in letter and spirit and should be given in retrospective effect. Accordingly, the Notification No. EDN.188/2012/24, dated 13th April, 2018 by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Education Department is hereby set aside. As submitted by the learned counsels, the New Pension Scheme came into effect from 1st April, 2010. If it is so, Court is in opinion that it will not be applicable in the case of government aided/adhoc and deficit school and college teachers who have retired/joined prior to 1st April, 2010. They should be given the pension as was given to government school and college teachers as per the Government Pension Rules. This Court makes it clear that the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation is to be followed as recommended. I further make it clear and direct that the Government should make Rules for family pension of the incumbent. Further, in addition to the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission in my view, government should give more facilities to the government aided/adhoc and deficit school and college teachers than what is recommended in the Fifth Pay Commission. Government must give equal facilities to the teachers of government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges equal to the benefits enjoyed by the government school and college teachers because the recommendation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only is too meagre in comparison to the present price index. If government has the power to adopt a policy or to amend rules and acts, the government should also consider the plight of the teachers of the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only is too meagre in comparison to the present price index. If government has the power to adopt a policy or to amend rules and acts, the government should also consider the plight of the teachers of the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges. The government should not forget that they are the representatives of the people and elected as MPs and MLAs of the people and by the people for the interest of the common people, and people expect that each and every citizen of the country shall get equal treatment and equal laws. Government aided/adhoc and deficit school and college teachers also take part in the election process and they never expect any discrimination and inequality from the government they have elected. It is also a fact that both in the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges teachers come through proper examination and oral interviews as MPSC conducts. Rather, I am of the considered view that written examination and oral interview are more transparent in government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges than the examinations conducted by the MPSC for e.g. the present education selection scam pertaining to the appointment of teachers by the MPSC which is under CBI investigation. The government should not take any plea of financial constraint to give the pensionary and other benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff of government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges. The management of the fund is totally in the hand of the government. 23. The submission of the government counsel that there is no provision for pension and other benefits in the Acts and Rules referred above, government definitely has the power to make a provision in the said Acts and Rules for pension and other benefits, the government can amend the Acts and Rules if they are really concerned about the plights of the government aided/adhoc and deficit schools and colleges teachers. What is important is to have a human touch and approach for all the citizens of the country so that they can live a decent and comfortable life after retirement with their kith and kin. 24. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of. This judgment shall be applicable throughout the State of Meghalaya. What is important is to have a human touch and approach for all the citizens of the country so that they can live a decent and comfortable life after retirement with their kith and kin. 24. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of. This judgment shall be applicable throughout the State of Meghalaya. Respondent to take note that the observations as well as the directions made in the judgment as discussed above are mandatory and must be followed strictly and the same is to be complied within 3(three) months from the date of the judgment and order.