ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure A-16), whereby case of the petitioners for Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 01.04.1993, came to be rejected, petitioners had approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 927/2019, which now on account of abolishment of Tribunal already stands transferred to this Court and has been renumbered as CWPOA No. 6443/2020, praying therein for following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the order dated 16.01.2019 contained in Annexure A-16 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondent-department may kindly be directed to release the Grant-in-Aid to the applicants from their respective dates of appointments reflected in Annexure A-1, in the respondent school upto 20.10.2009 with all consequential benefits.” 2. Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that petitioners herein filed CWP No. 272/2010, seeking therein directions to the respondents to pay them all salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits admissible to them as allowed to their counterparts working in different Govt. Senior Secondary Schools along with arrears and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. This Court vide judgment dated 27.05.2010, passed the following direction: “It is submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had already granted relief in CWP No. 492/1997. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the State to disburse 95% of Grant-in-Aid. The State had taken up the matter in appeal L.P.A. No. 37 of 2004. That was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.11.2008 and S.L.P. was also dismissed. It is submitted that the said judgment has been complied with. Claiming relief in similar circumstances, petitioner has submitted Annexure P-5 representation to the first respondent. There is a direction to the first respondent to look into and take appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter without discriminating the petitioner, in the light of the judgments referred to above. The needful as above shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition. Petition stands disposed of.” 3. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, petitioners herein submitted their representations to Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, requesting therein similar reliefs, as were prayed in the aforesaid writ petition. Petition stands disposed of.” 3. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, petitioners herein submitted their representations to Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, requesting therein similar reliefs, as were prayed in the aforesaid writ petition. Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, after having carefully gone through the records though found that school of the petitioners, i.e. Biilasan Senior Secondary School Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra was one of the 144 schools, list whereof was furnished in Civil Appeal No. 1233-1234 of 1993 filed in Hon’ble Apex Court and have also started +1 and +2 classes after obtaining temporary affiliation and recognition of the H.P Board of School Education, Dharamshala and Deputy Director of Education, North Zone, Dharamshala, respectively, but yet directed the Director, Higher Education to consider the case of the petitioners for Grant-in-Aid from the date of filing claim, i.e. 21.10.2009 (Annexure A-7). Pursuant to aforesaid order (Annexure A-7), passed by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Director Higher Education reconsidered the matter and interestingly rejected the case of the petitioners for Grant-in-Aid (Annexure A-16) on the ground that they are not similar to the petitioners in the cases, i.e. CWP No. 492/1997, titled Smt. Kailash Gupta and Others vs. the Secretary (Education) and Others and judgment dated 19.12.2011 in CWP No. 1201/2010, titled Anil Kumar and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others. Perusal of the aforesaid order (Annexure A-16) further reveals that one of the ground for rejection came to be recorded by Director Higher Education in aforesaid order is that vide order dated 28.07.2010, Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh rejected the case of the petitioners, which is factually incorrect. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 4. Reply to the petition stands filed, wherein, facts as recorded hereinabove, are not in dispute. 5. Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners while making this Court to peruse the order dated 28.07.2010 (Annexure A-7), passed by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. 4. Reply to the petition stands filed, wherein, facts as recorded hereinabove, are not in dispute. 5. Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners while making this Court to peruse the order dated 28.07.2010 (Annexure A-7), passed by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. contended that at no point of time, case of the petitioners for release of Grant-in-Aid came to be rejected, rather aforesaid authority directed the Director Higher Education to reconsider the case of the petitioners for Grant-in-Aid from the date of filing claim, i.e. 21.10.2009. Mr. Sharma, further submitted that Director Higher Education, while passing the order dated 16.01.2019, not only returned the findings contrary to the record, but also not bothered to look into the order passed by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. wherein actually he had allowed the claim of the petitioners for Grant-in-Aid and matter was referred to the Director for release of Grant-in-Aid from the date of filing the claim. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, argued that Director Higher Education was to pass orders releasing Grant-in-Aid in terms of order dated 28.07.2010, passed by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. but he himself without there being any authority, brushed aside the findings returned by Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. and wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners for release of Grant-in-Aid. 6. Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, learned Assistant Advocate General while supporting the impugned action taken on behalf of the respondents, contended that since petitioners in the case at hand, were not found similar situate to the petitioners in the cases, i.e. CWP No. 492/1997, titled Smt. Kailash Gupta and Others vs. the Secretary (Education) and Others and CWP No. 1201/2010, titled Anil Kumar and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others, there was no occasion, if any, for the Director Higher Education to order release of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioners from 01.04.1993. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order dated 16.01.2019, passed by Director Higher Education, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel representing the petitioners that findings returned in the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2019 is not only contrary to the record, but an attempt has been made by Director Higher Education to flout the order passed by superior authority, i.e. Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. Though, Director Higher Education while passing order dated 16.01.2019, has recorded that Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P vide order dated 28.07.2010, rejected the case of the petitioners, but if aforesaid order dated 28.07.2010, is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that Principal Secretary (Education) after being fully satisfied that Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, wherein petitioners were teaching prior to taking over of their services by Govt. was at S. No. 32 in the list of 144 schools, filed in in Civil Appeal No. 1233-34 of 1993, ordered vide aforesaid order dated 28.07.2010 that though Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra is entitled for release of Grant-in-Aid, but from the date of representation filed by the management of Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra on 21.10.2009. In view of the above, there was no occasion/scope, if any, left for Director Higher Education to reconsider the facts and return new findings that petitioners herein are not similar situate to the petitioners in the cases, i.e. CWP No. 492/1997, titled Smt. Kailash Gupta and Others vs. the Secretary (Education) and Others and CWP No. 1201/2010, titled Anil Kumar and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others, rather in compliance to aforesaid order dated 28.07.2010, he was to only pass order with regard to release of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 21.10.2009. However, in the case at hand, Director Higher Education vide order dated 16.01.2019, rejected the case of the petitioners for release of Grant-in-Aid in totality, that too, on the grounds, which were not available to him, especially when Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. However, in the case at hand, Director Higher Education vide order dated 16.01.2019, rejected the case of the petitioners for release of Grant-in-Aid in totality, that too, on the grounds, which were not available to him, especially when Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. after having carefully perused the record, had recorded its satisfaction that Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra also exists at S. No. 32 in the list of 144 schools, which were found entitled for release of Grant-in-Aid from 01.04.1993. Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P restricted the claim of the petitioners for release of Grant-in-Aid from the date of claim on the ground that representation from the management of Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, was received on 21.10.2019, but delay, if any, in filing the representation by management of the school, cannot be a ground to deny the admissible dues to the petitioners, who like other similar situate persons are also entitled to be released Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 01.04.1993, especially when Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra along with other 144 school was taken over by the Govt. of H.P. by way of notification. Though respondent No. 4, i.e. management of Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra has not disputed the factum of its having filed representation dated 21.10.2009, but as has been stated hereinabove, delay, if any, in filing the representation dated 21.10.2009, could not be ground for authority to deny the rightful claim of the petitioners from due date, i.e. 01.04.1993. Once, Govt. itself took conscious decision to release Grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.1993 to all 144 schools including school of the petitioners, claim of the petitioners could not be rejected on the ground that representation by the management of Biilasan Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, was filed on 21.10.2009. Once, Govt. of H.P. after dismissal of their SLP, itself decided to release Grant-in-Aid to all 144 schools including school of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1993, there was otherwise no requirement, if any for management of the school concerned to file representation in that regard, rather same was required to be released immediately as was done in the cases of other schools. of H.P. after dismissal of their SLP, itself decided to release Grant-in-Aid to all 144 schools including school of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1993, there was otherwise no requirement, if any for management of the school concerned to file representation in that regard, rather same was required to be released immediately as was done in the cases of other schools. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1201 of 2010-B, titled Anil Kumar and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others, in similar facts and circumstances, categorically recorded finding that once school has been included in the directory vide letter dated 23.3.1999, there is no justification why the Grant-in-Aid be not released w.e.f. April, 1993 at par with those institutions, whose names were included in the directory and were granted Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. April, 1993. Coordinate Bench of this Court, recorded in the aforesaid judgment that there is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the petitioners from their counter parts after inclusion of respondent-school in the directory maintained by the State Government for release of Grant-in-Aid. The equals cannot be treated unequally. Most importantly, in the aforesaid judgment Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that once, the decision has been taken to release the Grant-in-Ad, it should be released uniformly without putting any riders in the same. Relevant Para of the aforesaid judgment, is reproduced as under: “7. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-5, dated 24.5.2000 whereby according to him, the Director of Education has clarified that letter dated 23.3.1999 would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. It cannot be inferred from notification Annexure P-3 that the same was to be applied prospectively. Respondent No. 3-Institution was not covered inadvertently by not including it in the directory of those institutions who were released grant-in-aid. This mistake has now been rectified. Once the school has been included in the directory as per annexure P-3, dated 23.3.1999, there is no justification why the grant-in-aid be not released with effect from April, 1993 at par with those institutions, whose names were included in the directory and were granted grant-in-aid with effect from April, 1993. The petitioners are similarly situate as the teachers and staff of those Institutions which were included in the list of schools for the purpose of grant-in-aid. The petitioners are similarly situate as the teachers and staff of those Institutions which were included in the list of schools for the purpose of grant-in-aid. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the petitioners from their counter parts after inclusion of respondent No. 3-School in the directory maintained by the State Government for release of grant-in-aid. The equals cannot be treated unequally. Once the decision has been taken to release the grant-in-aid, it should be released uniformly without putting any riders in the same. The respondents cannot restrict the release of grant-in-aid to the petitioners from 1999 onwards instead of with effect from April, 1993. This action of the respondent-State is declared arbitrary.” Needless to say, it is not in dispute that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality because no appeal, if any, came to be filed against the same in this court or in Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, same is applicable in the case of the petitioners. 8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure A-16), passed by the Director Higher Education, is quashed and set aside and order dated 28.07.2010, passed by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. is quashed to the extent it held petitioners entitled to Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 21.10.2009. Respondents are directed to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1993. Since petitioners have been fighting for their rightful claim for the last so many years, this Court hopes and trust that needful shall be done by the respondents in terms of instant order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. 9. Present petition stands disposed of in above-terms, so also the pending applications, if any.