THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. WRIT PETITION No. 14896 of 2001. ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No. 138 Education (P.S..1) Department dt. 25.4.1994 issued by the Government of A.P. as arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled for arrears of grant-in-aid for the period from 1.3.1986 to 31.10.1989 and also direct the respondents to release the arrears with interest. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Education. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are working as Telugu Pandit (Grade-II) and SGBT Teachers in Sri Matthi Rathaiah Memorial High School (for short ‘SMRM High School’) for the last more than 15 years and that the appointment of the 1st petitioner was approved from 6.12.1979 and the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as Correspondent was approved from 27.10.1983 in unaided posts, by the Proceedings of the 3rd respondent dt. 19.10.1985. It is further stated that pursuant to the several representations submitted by SMRM High School, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 326 Education Department dt. 7.10.1989 admitting SMRM High School (Telugu Medium), Nagaram village, Guntur District to grant-in-aid in so far as the posts of the petitioners are concerned and also sanctioned an amount of Rs. 26,161, along with other schools. In para-12 of the G.O.Ms.No. 326 dt. 17.10.1989, it is mentioned that payment of arrears to the schools now admitted to grant-in-aid, orders will be issued separately. It is further stated that from 1.11.1989, the petitioners and the other similarly situated persons are being paid salaries in terms of grant-in-aid. The present writ petition is filed challenging G.O. Ms.No. 138 dt. 25.4.1994 refusing to pay arrears to the petitioners for the period from 1.3.1976 to 31.10.1989, which they claim to be entitled. The respondents filed counter stating that the Government of Andhra Pradesh have admitted unaided posts/unaided schools into grant- in-aid which were existing in the entire State as on the date of G.O.Ms.No. 326 dt. 17.10.1989 and the salaries and allowances are being paid with effect from 1.11.1989 and the petitioners are not entitled for arrears they claimed in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that GVK High School, Tadikonda, Guntur District, which was also admitted to grant-in-aid along with SMRM High School, Guntur filed W.P.No. 15879 of 1990 challenging the impugned G.O. and that said writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court and as against the Judgement of learned Single Judge, the State preferred W.A.No. 1745 of 1995 and that learned Division Bench of this Court confirmed the Judgement of learned single Judge by the Judgement dt. 11.6.1996 (reported in 1996 (3) ALT 825) by holding that the respondent in the writ appeal is entitled to the arrears of grant-in-aid and it cannot be denied on the ground of paucity of funds and that the Government cannot deny to pay the arrears without challenging the order of this Court, enacting A.P. Act No. 34 of 1995 to nullify the Judgement of single Judge i s ultra vires to the extent it purports to set aside the impugned Judgement. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that against the decision of this Court in W.A.No. 1745 of 1995, the Government of Andhra Pradesh carried matter to the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 2422 of 1997 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the above Civil Appeal (AIR 2000 SC 2651) held as under: “The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the respondent school was entitled to payment of arrears of grant-in-aid and quashed G.O.Ms.No. 138 dt. 25.4.1994. Then the State came forward with a legislation---after the said judgement, by way of Andhra Pradesh Act 34 of 1995 (Published in the Gazettee on 20.9.1995) with retrospective effect from 17.10.1989 which permitted denial of ‘arrears’ of grant-in-aid whenever such arrears were claimed under ‘any judgement, decree or order of Court or other authority or any order issued by Government’. In the Writ Appeal, the State relied upon the said legislation to get over the judgement dt. 27.7.95 of the learned Single Judge directing arrears of grant-in-aid to be paid but the Division Bench held that the legislature could not set aside the judgement of the High Court by Act 34/95. The judgment was confirmed and the Writ Appeal was dismissed. It is against the said judgement this appeal is preferred by the State. During the pendency of this appeal stay of High Court’s order was refused. The Supreme Court further held as under: “We next come to para 12 of GO 326 dated 17.10.1989. This GO contained a list of 59 schools like the respondent wherein it was stated that the Committee had given favourable recommendation in favour of the writ petitioner and other institutions. The GO stated that these institutions would be entitled for release of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1.11.89 to 29.2.90 for the year 1989-90. It, however, contained a note in para 12 as follows: “Regarding payment of arrears to the school now admitted to grant-in-aid, orders will be issued separately.” In our view, the word ‘now’ used in this GO does not mean that these schools are identified as entitled to grant- in-aid for the first time in 1989 in this GO 326. This is clear from the fact that like Section 3 of Act 22/88, this GO also speaks of arrears. If indeed the previous orders relating to admission to grant-in-aid were intended to be given a go bye as contended before us for the State, the Government would not have referred to the question of payment of arrears in this GO 326. Therefore, the word ‘now’ in our view, is used only to identify those schools etc., referred to in Annexure to the GO 326 and as cleared by the Committee and was not intended to create a new prospective right to receive grant-in-aid after 1989. Such identification would therefore clearly relate back to 22.7.85 which was the date from which Act 22/88 became retrospective.” In the Annexure of G.O.Ms.No. 326 dt. 17.10.1989, SMRM High School (TM) in which the petitioners have been working is shown at S.No. 9. Since the Supreme Court in the above referred decision clarified para 12 of G.O.Ms.No.326 dt. 17.10.1989 that it shall not be understood that the schools mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 326 dt. 17.10.1989 are identified as entitled to grant-in-aid for the first time in 1989. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled for arrears of grant-in-aid for the period from 1.3.1986 to 31.10.1989. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- quashing the G.O.Ms.No. 138 (Education (P.S.1) Department dt. 25.4.1994 as arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently it is declared that the petitioners are entitled for arrears of grant-in-aid for the period from 1.3.1986 to 31.10.1989, without interest. ________________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 8.12.2010. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. WRIT PETITION No. 14896 of 2001. ORDER: Dt. 8.12.2010.