JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. Though the matter is coming up for 'Hearing on Interlocutory Application', with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides the matter is heard and disposed of finally. 2. The petitioners No.2 to 15 are serving at the petitioner No.1 institution. The institution is established to run the industrial training course. The petitioner No.1 made an application for financial grant and the grant-in-aid committee inspected the premises of the petitioner No.1 on 12.2.1998. The committee recommended salary grant to the staff of the institution i.e., petitioners No.2 to 15. The petitioner No.15 is the wife of Sri D.V.Ashok Kumar, who was earlier serving with the institution. By order dated 05.05.1998, the institution was admitted for salary grant. 3. The respondent No.2 Commissioner of the Department of Employment and Training issued a show cause notice dated 01.06.2013 calling upon the institution to show cause as to why the recognition should not be cancelled, enlisting the reasons for issuance of the show cause notice. The petitioner No.1 caused a reply to the show cause notice on 13.08.2013 and requested the Commissioner not to pass any adverse order and that action will be taken to provide all basic facilities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner thereafter directed the Joint Director (Training) to approve the demand made by the petitioner No.1 institution by communication dated 18.09.2013. It is submitted that the Commissioner thereafter directed the Joint Director to release the salary to the staff of the petitioner No.1 institution, which is an aided institution, but subject to a condition that the institution should obtain re-recognition from the Director General Training, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'DGET'). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Quality Council of India is the competent authority to grant the re-recognition, but, since there were several orders staying the functioning of the Quality Council of India, the Quality Council of India is not functioning and in this regard the Director of Training, Member Secretary of National Council for Vocational Training, by its note dated 05.04.2016 communicated to all the concerned Officer/Commissioner that the competent authority has decided that the admission to ITI's may be continued for the session 2016-17 without insisting for reaffiliation till further orders. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that till date the orders of stay are continuing and therefore question of re-affiliation to be obtained from DGET did not arise. In that regard learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 28.09.2016 written by the Commissioner to the Deputy Director and Principal of the Government Industrial Training Institute, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural District, stating that since the order of stay against the DGET is operating and the institution has undertaken to secure re-affiliation within one year from the date when the order of stay was vacated, the Commissioner directed the concerned officer to inspect the petitioner institution and submit a report for releasing the salary. In compliance of the directions issued by the Commissioner, the Deputy Director and Principal of the Government Industrial Training Institute, Hosakote inspected the premises of the petitioner No.1 institution and submitted the report dated 03.10.2016 to the Commissioner. In the report, the Deputy Director has clearly opined that the institution has provided all the infrastructure as required under the DGET Regulation. It was also observed that the institution had admitted 100% of the approved strength of the student for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and the results of the institution were very good. The Deputy Director therefore recommends to the Commissioner that since the financial position of the institution is very poor and the salary of the staff were not made since May 2014, the salary from the month May 2014 be released to the institution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the recommendation of the Deputy Director and several representations being given by the petitioner No.1 institution, the respondents did not release the salary of the staff. Therefore, being aggrieved, the institution as well as the staff are before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to release the salary grant and pay the arrears of salary to petitioners No.2 to 15 from May, 2014 along with interest for the delayed payment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court had passed an interim order on 15.09.2017 directing the respondents to pay the current salary to petitioners No.2 to 15, pending disposal of the present writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court had passed an interim order on 15.09.2017 directing the respondents to pay the current salary to petitioners No.2 to 15, pending disposal of the present writ petitions. It is submitted that the directions were partly complied with, in as much as salary being released from September, 2017 at the rate prevailing during the year 2014. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioners No.2 to 15 cannot get the benefits of 6th pay commission as claimed since the petitioner No.1 has not got the re-affiliation in terms of the DGET norms. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that petitioner No.1 was not able to make an application for re-affiliation since the web portal of the Quality Council of India is not operational. Nevertheless, it is submitted even as per the report of the Deputy Director, the petitioner institution has provided all the necessary infrastructure in consonance with the DGET Regulations. The institution has been functioning and the students have been securing good results. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 9. What is important to be noticed is that the respondents, along with statement of objections have produced a copy of the Government Order dated 19.01.2019, according to which a sum of Rs. 101 Crore of aid has been released for payment to the Industrial Training Institutions for the academic year 2018-19. There is a specific direction to release the salary to the staff of the Industrial Training Institute as per the recommendation of the 6th State pay commission. It is an admitted position that the respondents have been releasing the salary to the staff but not as per the recommendation of the 6th State pay commission. In that view of the matter, the respondents cannot contend that the petitioner No.1 institution is not admitted to grant in aid. The dispute is not regarding the admission of the institution to the grant in aid. The problem arose when a show cause notice was issued to the institution alleging that the infrastructure therein is not in compliance with the guidelines issued by the DGET. The dispute is not regarding the admission of the institution to the grant in aid. The problem arose when a show cause notice was issued to the institution alleging that the infrastructure therein is not in compliance with the guidelines issued by the DGET. That deficiency has since been addressed by the institution and the report of the Deputy Director in that regard substantiates the fact that the institution has complied with the regulation and in fact made an attempt to apply for re-affiliation. It is also an admitted fact that the web portal of the Quality Council of India is not functional. Moreover, the Director of Training, Member Secretary of NCVT of the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, New Delhi, by communication dated 05.04.2016 has informed all the Commissioners and concerned officers to go ahead with the admission in ITI's without waiting for re-affiliation. Therefore, the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to allow these petitions. 10. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to release the salary grant and pay the arrears of salary to petitioners No.2 to 15 from May 2014. As noted earlier, since the respondents have started paying the salary from September 2014, the arrears shall be paid till September, 2014. The respondents are hereby specifically directed to pay the arrears after calculating the difference in pay based on the 6th State pay commission which was given to the other staff of the ITI's. The petitioners No.2 to 15 are also entitled for the said benefit under the 6th State pay commission similar to the staff of other ITI's. The arrears so calculated shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. In view of the disposal of the main matter, I.A.Nol/2018 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.