JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Arun Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. This writ petition is second round of litigation before this Court and the controversy emanates from the action of the respondents dated 16.12.1996 whereby for the first time, the claim of the petitioner for being brought on grant-in-aid by the State Government pursuant to the Government Order dated 31st March, 1994, was rejected. Five institutions including the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing no. 15429 of 1994 questioning the stand taken by the State Government in the order dated 16.12.1996 whereby the very claim of the petitioner was rejected. 3. The grievance of the petitioners was that inspite of the fact that their institutions have been recognized prior to 31st March, 1994, they have been discriminated against while identically placed institutions were brought on grant-in-aid. The writ petition (supra) accordingly was disposed of with direction to the State Government to re-examine the issue after verifying the records of the institution as to whether institutions in question were recognized prior to cutoff date mentioned in the Government Order and for this purpose, the petitioners were directed to make representations individually to the State Government. The operative part of the order dated 21st September, 2010 is reproduced hereunder: "Petitioners may make individual representations supported by such documents for establishing the date from which the petitioner institution has been established and is running continuously along with certified copy of this order before respondent no. 1 within four weeks from today. On such representation being made respondent no. 1 shall call for the records and satisfy himself as to whether any institution which has been established on a date subsequent to the date of establishment of the petitioners' institution has been provided financial assistance under the order dated 31.8.1994 or not. If the answer to the above is in affirmative he shall pass appropriate order for the petitioner institution to be provided similar financial assistance by the State Government. The claim of the petitioners' institution for such financial assistance being provided from the date of the order dated 31.3.1994 may also be considered. The exercise may be completed within three months from the date, the representation is so made by means of a reasoned speaking order. The claim of the petitioners' institution for such financial assistance being provided from the date of the order dated 31.3.1994 may also be considered. The exercise may be completed within three months from the date, the representation is so made by means of a reasoned speaking order. Writ petition is disposed of subject to the aforesaid observations." 4. All the five petitioners thereafter made representations and also produced their respective records before the authority concerned. However, representations of all the five petitioners were rejected in identical manner vide order dated 28th June, 2011, though separately passed. 5. What is interesting to notice is that while rejecting the representations, no consideration was made to the observations made by the court in its order dated 21.09.2010 and it is because institutions in question could not be included in the list of eligible institutions that the claim was rejected. And then it was held that the scheme to bring on aid the primary institutions in the Department of Social Welfare having been dropped w.e.f. 5.10.2006, the petitioner's case cannot be considered. And then it was held that the scheme to bring on aid the primary institutions in the Department of Social Welfare having been dropped w.e.f. 5.10.2006, the petitioner's case cannot be considered. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 5.10.2006 are reproduced hereunder:- ^^5- mDr ds ifjÁs{; esa 'kklu }kjk vxLr] 2010 esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd Áns'k esa lhfer la[;k esa ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ksa dks ,deq'r vkfFkZd lgk;rk Áfro"kZ Ánku dj muds lqpk: lapkyu ,oa fodkl dh O;oLFkk dh tk;A rn~uqlkj ekŒ eaf=ifj"kn ds vuqeksnu ls ,d uhfr fo"k;d fu.kZ; ysrs gq, 'kklukns'k la[;k 1965@26-2-2010&19 ¼53½@2005 fnukad 3-8-2010 tkjh fd;k x;k] ftlesa jkT; ljdkj us Áns'k esa futh ÁcU/kra= }kjk lapkfyr ekU;rk ÁkIr vuwlwfpr tkfr ckgqY; ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ksa dks Áfro"kZ ,deq'r vkfFkZd lgk;rk ¼5 yk[k :i;s osru gsrq rFkk 1 yk[k :i;s Hkou ejEer vkfn ds fy,½ Ánku fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk dh x;h gSA bl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr 200 fo|ky;ksa dks fy;k tkuk gS] fo|ky;ksa ds p;u@ÁkFkfedrk fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus gsrq ÁR;sd tuin esa ftykf/kdkjh dh v/;{krk esa ,d lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k] tks lacaf/kr fo|ky; }kjk bl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr viuk ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr fd;s tkus ij 'kklukns'k fnukad 03-08-2010 esa fu/kkZfjr ekudksa ds vuqlkj p;fur djus dh laLrqfr djsxhA ftykf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fu/kkZfjr ÁkFkfedrk@ laLrqfr;ksa ds Øe esa 183 fo|ky;ksa dks ,deq'r vkfFkZd lgk;rk Ánku fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; 'kklukns'k fnukad 30-05-2011 }kjk fy;k tk pqdk gSA 6- funs'kd] lekt dY;k.k us vius i= la[;k 5290@lŒdŒ@f'k{kk@ÁkŒikŒ&dksVZdsl@2010&11] fnukad 16-03-2011 }kjk voxr djk;k gS fd ,deq'r vkfFkZd lgk;rk ;kstukUrxZr Á'uxr fo|ky; dk vkosnu&i= ÁkIr gqvk FkkA ftykf/kdkjh] xksj[kiqj dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr us vkosnu&i= dk ijh{k.k fd;k rFkk ik;k fd Á'uxr fo|ky; ,deq'r vkfFkZd lgk;rk ;kstukUrxZr ik=rk dh 'krsZ iw.kZ ds dkj.k ik= gS rFkk ÁLrko 'kklu dks miyC/k djk;kA ftykf/kdkjh] xksj[kiqj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ojh;rk Øe esa uhps gksus ds dkj.k fnukad 30-05-2011 dks fuxZr 183 fo|ky;ksa dh lwph esa p;fur ugha gks ldkA 7- futh ÁcU/kkf/kdj.k }kjk lapkfyr vuqlwfpr tkfr ckgqY; ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ksa dks lekt dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk vkorZd vuqnku ij fy, tkus dh O;oLFkk 'kklukns'k fnukad 05-10-2006 }kjk lekIr dj nh xbZ gSA ,deq'r vkfFkZd lgk;rk ;kstukUrxZr fu/kkZfjr ekud iw.kZ djus ds ckotwn tuin&xksj[kiqj ds ik= fo|ky;ksa dh ojh;rk lwph esa uhps gksus ds dkj.k Á'uxr fo|ky; p;fur ugha gks ldkA vr% ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 21-09-2010 ds Øe esa mek egs'oj Ákbejh ikB'kkyk] pkSdekQh] xksj[kiqj dks vkorZd vuqnku ij fy;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa fo|ky; ds Á/kkuk/;kid Jh fo|k Álkn }kjk fnukad 19-10-2010 dks fn;k x;k ÁR;kosnu iks"k.kh; ugha gSA rn~uqlkj ;kph dk ÁR;kosnu fnukad 19-10-2010 ,rn~}kjk fujLr djrs gq, fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. Against the aforesaid order, the individual petitioners including present petitioner filed writ petition. The writ petition bearing no. 44284 of 2011 was disposed of vide order dated 20th August, 2014. The relevant portion of the order (supra) including operative portion of the order are reproduced hereunder: "17. The other aspect which requires consideration is dependent on the determination of the first aspect. If the institutions that were brought under the grant-in-aid list by order dated 31.03.1994 continue to receive grant-in-aid, then, if it is found that the petitioner's institution was wrongly deprived of being brought under the grant-in-aid even though it was eligible and was established prior to the establishment of those institutions that were brought under the grant-in-aid, the respondent no. 1 was required to provide the benefit to the petitioner institution in terms of the order dated 21.09.2010 passed in Writ (C) No. 15429 of 1994. Therefore, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner-institution a specific finding ought to have been returned whether any institution which was brought under the grant- in- aid, vide order dated 31.3.1994, was established after the petitioner- institution or not or that its claim for some reason was higher in priority than that of the petitioner -institution at the time when the earlier government order dated 31.03.1994 was issued. The impugned order fails to record such finding. 18. As material aspects, as noticed above, have not been taken into consideration by the respondent No. 1 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner's institution, this Court is of the view the matter requires fresh consideration by the respondent no. 1. 19. In view of the above, the order dated 28th June, 2011 is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner's institution for being brought in the grant-in-aid list, afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above, keeping in mind the observations made in the order dated 21.09.2010 passed in Writ (C) No. 15429 of 1994. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. 20. With the aforesaid directions/observations the writ petition stands disposed of. There is no order as to costs." 7. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. 20. With the aforesaid directions/observations the writ petition stands disposed of. There is no order as to costs." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the copy of the order passed in special appeal no. 526 of 2015 arising out of Writ Petition No. 44286 of 2011, which was in identical matter as one of the five institutions and said special appeal filed by State came to be dismissed by division bench vide order dated 30th July, 2015. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the division bench is reproduced hereunder: "By an earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 21 September 2010, the State was directed to reconsider the claim of the respondent, particularly whether any institution which has been established subsequent to the date of the establishment of the respondent had been provided with financial assistance under a Government Order dated 31 March 1994. The earlier grant-in-aid scheme was discontinued on 5 October 2006 and subsequently another scheme was implemented with effect from 2010. The basic issue which was required to be considered was whether the respondent had been discriminated against and that other institutions, though established subsequent to it, had been brought on the grant-in-aid list under the Government Order dated 31 March 1994. This basic issue which was required to be considered under the previous judgment of the Court dated 21 September 2010 had not been considered as was, in fact, fairly stated before the Court on behalf of the State. It was in this view of the matter that the learned Single Judge has remanded the proceedings back to the State for reconsideration of the claim of the respondent. The State Government having accepted the previous order dated 21 September 2010 cannot make a grievance of the subsequent order which is impugned in the special appeal since all that it requires is to consider the claim of the respondent in terms of those directions. For these reasons, we do not find any reason to entertain the special appeal. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 8. For these reasons, we do not find any reason to entertain the special appeal. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 8. The petitioner claims that since no action was being taken inspite of direction issued by this Court in writ petitions filed by other identical institutions, two contempt petitions came to be filed bearing no. 7227 of 2015 in the case of Uma Maheshwar Primary Pathshala vs. Sri Sunil Kumar and Contempt Application No. 222 of 2016 in case of Harijan Primary Pathshala vs. State of U.P. and Others. This Court took notice in the petition requiring respondents to show cause, however ultimately the order was passed by the State Government on 6th September, 2018 bringing those two institutions on grant-in-aid. The order dated 06th September, 2018 passed by the Chief Secretary Government of U.P. Lucknow is reproduced in its entirety hereunder:- ^^Ás"kd] eukst flag] Áeq[k lfpo] mŒÁŒ 'kkluA lsok esa] funs'kd] lekt dY;k.k] mŒÁŒ y[kuÅA lekt dY;k.k vuqHkkx&2 y[kuÅ fnukad% 06 flrEcj] 2018 fo"k;%& fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 45351@2011 MkŒ Hkhejko vEcsMdj f'k{kk fudsru cuke mŒÁŒ jkT; o vU; esa ekŒ mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 05-12-2014 ,oa rRØe esa ;kph }kjk ekŒ mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa ;ksftr voekuuk ;kfpdk la[;k 3080@2016 MkŒ Hkhejko vEcsMdj f'k{kk fudsru cuke Jh lquhy dqekj] Áeq[k lfpo] lekt dY;k.k esa ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-08-2018 ds vuqikyu ds laca/k esaA egksn;] voxr djkuk gS fd ÁcU/kd] MkŒ Hkhejko vEcsMdj f'k{kk fudsru] taxy jlwyiqj }kjk fo|ky; dks vkorZd vuqnku lwph esa lfEefyr fd;s tkus gsrq ekŒ mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 45351@2011 MkŒ Hkhejko vEcsMdj f'k{kk fudsru cuke mŒÁŒ jkT; o vU; ;ksftr dh x;hA Á'uxr fjV ;kfpdk esa ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 05-12-2014 dk fØ;kRed va'k fuEuor~ gS%& "The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner's institution for being taken on the grant-in-aid list, afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this court in Writ Petition No 44284 of 2011 as well as in the order dated 21.09.2010 passed in Writ (C) No. 15429 of 1994. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions/observations the writ petition stands disposed of." 3- ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr vkns'k fnukad 23-08-2010 ds vuqikyu esa ;kph }kjk 'kklu esa ÁLrqr ÁR;kosnu fnukad 22-12-2014 ds ek/;e ls fo|ky; dks vuqnku ij fy;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA 4- ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr vkns'k fnukad 05-12-2014 dk vuqikyu u gksus ds dkj.k ;kph }kjk ekŒ mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa ;ksftr mDr voekuukokn la[;k 3080@2016 esa ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-08-2018 dk fØ;kRed va'k fuEuor~ gS%& Issue notice to the newly impleaded opposite party no. 2 to show cause within three weeks from today as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him for the willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 5.12.2014. Applicants to take steps within a week. List this contempt application on 7.9.2018. In case show cause is not filed by the next date fixed, the opposite party shall appear in person before this Court. 5- vr% bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk ,oa voekuukokn esa ikfjr vkns'kksa rFkk funs'kd] lekt dY;k.k }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h vk[;k@laLrqfr ds Øe esa ;kph laLFkk MkŒ Hkhejko vEcsMdj f'k{kk fudsru] taxy jlwyiqj xksj[kiqj dks vkorZd vuqnku dh lwph esa lfEefyr fd;s tkus gsrq Á'kkldh; Lohd`fr Ánku djrs gq;s ;kph ds ÁR;kosnu fnukad 22-12-2014 dks ,rn~}kjk fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** 9. The contempt applications referred to hereinabove came to be finally dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2016 as no cause any more survived. 10. The present petition is, therefore, according to submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be allowed in the light of orders passed in Writ (C) No. 44286 of 2011 and consequential order passed by the State Government dated 6th September, 2018 quoted hereinabove. 11. On pointed query made to the learned Standing Counsel as to why present petition may also not be allowed though belatedly filed compared to other petitioners' institution who had immediately approached the Court, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner's case can be considered on its own merit in the light of the fact that identical issues were involved in the cases of similarly placed other two institutions. 12. 12. Sri Arun Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 argues that in so far as question of grant is concerned, it is for State Government to bring on grant-in-aid any particular institution and respondent no. 5 has nothing to do but only to take such consequential action as may be necessary after grant is accorded. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, submissions advanced across the Bar and having perused the record, two clear facts emerged: firstly that the special appeal has come to be dismissed against decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in which this Court has recorded a categorical finding that the State Government having not recorded the finding of fact as to whether institution was recognized prior to the cutoff date, the respondent was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and, therefore, in the light of the judgment of special appellate court the order of learned Single Judge became final and it became obligatory for the State Government to consider the issue from that angle but it was not done and in the present case also similar order of the same date that was referred, is under challenge, whereby, grant has been refused; and secondly, the State Government vide order dated 6th September, 2018 (supra) just six months back had accorded grant-in aid facility to those very institutions in respect of whom the identical orders were passed earlier so why not in the petitioner's case similar benefit be accorded. 14. From the perusal of the order dated 6th September, 2018, it clearly transpires that the State Government has come to conclude or at-least it shall be deemed from the recitals made in the order that institutions fulfill the eligibility criterion and, therefore, they deserve grant-in-aid facility under the Government Order. 15. In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to sustain the order impugned and, accordingly, order impugned dated 28th June, 2011, annexure 13 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 16. The State Government is directed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in the light of directions contained in the order dated 20th August, 2014 passed in Writ (C) No. 44286 of 2011 and its own order issued by the Chief Secretary dated 6th September, 2018 which has been quoted hereinabove in the earlier part of this judgment. 16. The State Government is directed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in the light of directions contained in the order dated 20th August, 2014 passed in Writ (C) No. 44286 of 2011 and its own order issued by the Chief Secretary dated 6th September, 2018 which has been quoted hereinabove in the earlier part of this judgment. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 17. It is left open for the respondents to scrutinize the matter from all such angles which may be necessary for the purpose of grant-in-aid. The eligibility criteria should be tested only in terms of similarly placed other institutions in respect of whom earlier writ petitions have been disposed of vide order dated 20th August, 2014. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.