IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Review No. 27/2009 Decided on:9.7.2009 State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Uttra Thakur and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) The present petition has been filed seeking review/recalling of judgment dated 6.6.2008 passed in CWP No. 993/2005. The Court has passed the following judgment on 6.6.2008: “It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General at Bar that necessary funds had already been released by the State Government towards the grant-in- aid. He further submitted that since the name of the respondent No.5- institution figures at Sr. No. 95 of the list of 144 Government aided intuitions, the teachers serving therein will also be entitled to their salaries out of the funds already released. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 In view of these observations, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to ensure that the salaries of the petitioners are paid from the funds already released by the State Government. There shall be no order as to costs.” The judgment has been pronounced on the basis of statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General to the effect that the necessary funds had been released by the State Government to the Bansi Lal Butail Memorial Senior Secondary School for Girls, Palampur, District Kangra. In sequel to the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, the writ petition was disposed of. The ground mentioned seeking review/recalling of the judgment is that the learned Additional Advocate General might be under the impression that the funds had already been released by the State Government, but in fact, the Institution concerned was not released any grant-in-aid from the beginning. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that Bansi Lal Butail Memorial Senior Secondary School for Girls, Palampur though was included in the list of 144 schools, but was not released the grant-in-aid for the simple reason that it has not ever applied for the same. The other ground urged by Mr. Sharma is that it is only when Public Model HS, Jassore which was released the grant-in- aid, the school in question had made request for the release of grant-in- aid. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General also produced the records at the time of hearing of this petition. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal has strenuously argued that there is no necessity to review/recall the judgment dated 6.6.2008. According to him, initially the school has not moved any application for the release of grant- in-aid, but subsequently it was made and similarly situate three schools, 3 which were left out, were released the grant-in-aid. He further contended that it is the prerogative of the school in question to seek the grant-in-aid or not as and when occasion arises. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as the record carefully. It is admitted fact that the name of the Bansi Lal Butail Memorial Senior Secondary School for Girls, Palampur finds mention in the list of 144 schools. The list is annexed with this petition. It is borne out from the record produced by the State that initially one private school i.e. Public Model HS, Jassore was not receiving any grant-in-aid. This school figures at Sr. No. 97 of the list annexed with the petition. The application was made by the school in the year 2001 and the grant-in-aid was released in its favour. Similarly, respondent No.14 i.e. Bansi Lal Butail Memorial Senior Secondary School for Girls, Palampur also made application after 2001 and in that case also the grant-in-aid was required to be released. The grant-in-aid could not be refused to the school only for the reason that it has not insisted for release of grant-in-aid earlier. It is the duty cast upon the State Government to release the grant-in-aid to those schools whose names find mention in the list of 144 schools as per the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and others, (1995) 4 SCC 507. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. Respondent No. 14 school cannot be discriminated against by the petitioner-State for the simple reason that it has not applied earlier for the release of grant-in-aid. The Public Model HS, Jassore was also similarly situate. The State cannot treat equals as unequals. It may be true that initially the grant-in-aid was not released to the school as submitted by Mr. 4 Sharma at the time of passing of the judgment on 6.6.2008, but the fact of the matter is that the Bansi Lal Butail Memorial Senior Secondary School for Girls, Palampur is entitled to the release of grant-in-aid by the State Government. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petitioenrs are liable to release the grant-in-aid to proforma respondent No.14 (school) now even though earlier it has come erroneously in the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General that the necessary funds stood released. Accordingly, judgment dated 6.6.2008 is modified only to the extent that since respondent No.14 school figures at Sr. No. 95 of the list of 144 schools and the application has already been made, the petitioner-State is directed to release the funds to respondent No.14 school i.e. Bansi Lal Butail Memorial Senior Secondary School for Girls, Palampur within a period of four weeks from today. The judgment dated 6.6.2008 stands modified to this extent. The Teachers shall be paid their salary accordingly. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of. No costs. 9.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*