LPA No.5 of 2005. 21.07.2009 Present: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.743 of 1998 dated 21st October, 2004. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this Letter Patent Appeal are that respondent No.1 preferred civil writ petition before this Court seeking direction against the State for release of 95% grant-in-aid to enable him to get his salary equivalent to his counter-parts in the Government schools in consonance with the criteria laid down in the H.P. Education Code. The writ petition was primarily opposed by the State on the ground of staffing pattern contained in the H.P. Education Code. The representation made by the respondent was rejected and he was informed that his case could not be considered. The learned Single Judge by a well reasoned judgment allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent. The State was directed to re-examine the matter within three months from the passing of the judgment and to release the admissible grant-in-aid to the school by or before 30th April, 2005. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood has vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the learned Single Jude is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Dilip Sharma has supported the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, dated 21st October, 2004. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment carefully. The contention put forth by the State Government before the learned Single Judge, that the grant-in-aid could not be released in view of the staffing pattern contained in H.P. Education Code, has been repelled by him on the basis of the judgment rendered in CWP No.1943 of 1996 dated 31.8.2004. We have seen this judgment in connected Letter Patent Appeal No.8 of 2005. The learned Single Judge has categorically held that the staffing pattern did not make any distinction so far the requirement of additional staff to be employed by the privately managed schools was concerned. The learned Single Judge has also repelled the contention of the State Government of financial crisis after relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and others, (2000) 2 SCC 42 as well as in State of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and others, (1995) 4 SCC 507. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and he has dealt with all the contentions raised by the parties at the time of hearing. We see no merit in this Letter Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. Stay granted on 30.8.2005 and confirmed vide order dated 30.3.2006 is vacated. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 21, 2009. (sck)