ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 06.10.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 860 of 2004, whereby the order passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, at Ahmedabad dated 03.10.2003 came to be confirmed. 2. The brief facts leading to the rise of the present appeal are that respondent no. 1 was working as a Teacher in the school of the appellant, with regard to salary and other allowances not being paid, as per the rates prescribed by the State Government, the proceedings came to be filed before the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an order on 03.10.2003, in which, the application filed by the Teacher came to be allowed, by holding that the present appellant - institute even if minority institute is also liable to pay full salary and allowances as prescribed by the State Government from time to time to its employees including the post retirement benefits as well. The operative part of the order contained in para 12 of the learned Tribunal has indicated entitlement of salary and emoluments as per the Government Rules. 2.1. The said order appears to have been challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 860 of 2004 by the appellant - institute through its member essentially on the ground that institute being minority institute is under an obligation to pay salary and allowances as per the rate prescribed by the State authority. This controversy has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge at the relevant point of time, in which, Special Civil Application No. 860 of 2004 came to be decided vide order dated 06.10.2016, in which the petition came to be disposed of as not entertained, by taking note of even the decision delivered by the Apex Court In Special Leave to Appeal No. 14469 of 2012 dated 07.09.2012. Accordingly, the appellant is under an obligation to carry out the directions issued by the learned Tribunal. This detailed order passed in writ application thereafter, attempted to be recalled by way of application being Misc. Accordingly, the appellant is under an obligation to carry out the directions issued by the learned Tribunal. This detailed order passed in writ application thereafter, attempted to be recalled by way of application being Misc. Civil Application (For Recall) No. 1 of 2018, by raising multiple contentions, but the said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2019, since it was also found by the learned Single Judge that it is at much belated stage i.e. after a period of 719 days. Accordingly, the delay application itself is disposed of. Resultantly, the said recall application also came to be disposed of. The record further indicates that yet further attempt is made by the appellant to file another application for recalling order dated 15.02.2019 passed in recall application. The said application after a detailed order came to be rejected and after the said order dated 08.03.2019, the appellant has then made an attempt to prefer this Letters Patent Appeal by challenging the original order passed in Special Civil Application No. 860 of 2004. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel Shri E.E. Saiyed appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant being minority institute has a different status is not under an obligation to pay the salary and allowances as prescribed by the State authorities and the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has committed error in thrusting upon the said responsibility. It has been further submitted that the institutions which are running and administered by minorities are having special status and cannot compelled to observe the norms prescribed by the State authorities for salary and allowances to its employees and staff. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated this aspect which has compelled the appellant to approach this Court. However, a request is made by learned advocate Shri Saiyed to issue notice to call upon the opponent to find out amicable solution. But since the said circumstance has not found any favour with the appellant, looking to this gross facts, learned advocate Shri Saiyed has then submitted that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside as are not in consonance with the proposition of law with regard to the status of minority. 4. But since the said circumstance has not found any favour with the appellant, looking to this gross facts, learned advocate Shri Saiyed has then submitted that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside as are not in consonance with the proposition of law with regard to the status of minority. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the sequence of events, we find that here is an institution which has practically deprived the opponent from the benefits of orders which have been passed consistently in her favour through out from October, 2003, we find that there is a clear assertion on the part of the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge that the contention with regard to minority status would not be available by virtue of decision delivered by the Apex Court, referred to by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the learned advocate for the appellant has not made out any case, which would call for any interference. 4.1. We have noticed from the record that the learned Tribunal after full fledged adjudication of original application has categorically held that minority institution is also liable to pay full salary and allowances as prescribed by the State Government from time to time to its employees and such observations and direction has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge as well. For immediate perusal, para 12 is reproduced below:- "12. In view of the above discussion, the question framed at the outset is answered in affirmative. It is held that the applicant is entitled to receive full pay as prescribed by the Govt. with all allowances. The school management is also duty bound to evolve a scheme or C.P.F. For its employees in accordance with the rules. I am therefore, inclined to accept this application. In the result and for the reasons narrated herein above, this application is allowed. It is held that the respdt. Minority institution is also liable to pay full salaries and allowances as fixed by the State Govt. time to time to its employees and it shall also frame proper scheme of post-retiral benefits (like C.P.F. Etc.) for its employees. The school shall strictly comply with rules of recognition. The D.E.O. And the officers of Gujarat Secondary Education Board shall suitably guide the management in evolving the scheme of post-retiral benefits as per rules. time to time to its employees and it shall also frame proper scheme of post-retiral benefits (like C.P.F. Etc.) for its employees. The school shall strictly comply with rules of recognition. The D.E.O. And the officers of Gujarat Secondary Education Board shall suitably guide the management in evolving the scheme of post-retiral benefits as per rules. The applicant is entitled to receive full salaries with allowances as prescribed by the Govt. of Gujarat time to time. The prayer of the applicant about the payment of arrears from the date of appointment is refused. However, the applicant is held entitled to receive the difference amount between the salaries as per Govt. rules with allowances and the amount actually paid from the date of filing of this application I.e. from January 1992 which shall be paid by the management from their own funds. These directions shall be carried out within a period of 3 months from receipt of this judgement failing which after expiry of third month the dues of applicant shall accrue interest at the rate of 9% which shall also be paid by the school management. No order as to costs. Office shall serve a copy of this judgement to the Secretary G.S.E. Board." 4.2. While examining the stand of the appellant, we have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 860 of 2004, in which the learned Single Judge has examined the petition at length and after considering several decisions of the Apex Court has found that no case is made out and the order passed by the learned Tribunal calls for no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge after considering the observations made by the decision delivered by the Apex Court has disposed of the petition. 4.3. The record indicates that on the basis of almost similar contentions, twice an attempt is made by the appellant to recall the order originally passed in Special Civil Application, but said attempts have remained unsuccessful which, ultimately led the appellant to prefer this Letters Patent Appeal after almost a period of two and half years. 4.3. The record indicates that on the basis of almost similar contentions, twice an attempt is made by the appellant to recall the order originally passed in Special Civil Application, but said attempts have remained unsuccessful which, ultimately led the appellant to prefer this Letters Patent Appeal after almost a period of two and half years. We have also noticed that even while dismissing the review application, the learned Single Judge has noted down the contentions raised by the learned advocate with regard to its minority institute as well and has found that there is a gross delay in exhausting such remedies. The review application which has been submitted is after almost a period of 719 days and thereafter, another attempt is made is also at much belated stage and further this Letters Patent Appeal which has been filed is also reflecting delay of 865 days. Considering the settled position of law, which has been reflecting on the orders in this proceedings, supported by the decisions of the Apex Court, we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. On the contrary, we have noticed that yet the respondent employee is deprived of her legitimate benefit, which has accrued in her favour right from October, 2003. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which would warrant any interference. 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 6. Since the main appeal is dismissed, civil application for stay does not survive and the same stands dismissed.