THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19654 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner herein viz., Church of South India, had established fairly good number of institutions at various places in the Rayalaseema area of Andhra Pradesh and almost all of them are admitted to grant in aid. Under the provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code, the Government would reimburse not only the salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff but also, what is known as ‘maintenance grant’ towards contingent expenditure. Under Clause 27 of the Code, the maintenance grant is stipulated at 10% of the basic pay of teaching grant of the year 1978. Initially, the Government of A.P. issued A.P. Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Second Ordinance 1994, in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.1159 of 1991, wherein it was directed that the grant in aid must be released at 6% of the salaries in force as on the relevant date. Later on the Ordinance became Act 11 of 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) under the same nomenclature. The Act prescribes a different procedure and confers discretion with the Government to stipulate the rate of maintenance grant. G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 16.09.1994 was issued prescribing the percentage of grant for different periods. From 01.04.192 on wards, it was stipulated at 2%. W.P.No.20106 of 1994 was filed by the Association of Recognized Schools Managements questioning the Act as well as G.O.Ms.No.320. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition through judgment, reported in 1997(3) ALD 40. The Act as well as the G.O. were quashed. In W.A.No.526 of 1997, filed by the Government, the Division Bench observed that the Act cannot be said to be ultra vires. It was however directed that the rates of grant in aid before the Act came into force shall be governed by the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.1159 of 1991. The petitioner complains that the respondents have not released the maintenance grant at 6% of the teaching grant and seeks directions in relation to the said amount. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, opposing the plea of the petitioner. It is stated that the validation of the Act was upheld and G.O.Ms.No.320 was issued prescribing the rates of grant in aid and in that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner for grant at the rate of 6% cannot be sustained in law. Heard Sri K.Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. The Government of A.P. recognized its obligation to provide financial assistance to the educational institutions particularly at school level and admitted several institutions to grant in aid. Apart from reimbursing the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff, it also provided for maintenance grant. Initially it was at 10%. Later on it was slashed down to 6%. At a subsequent stage, the percentage was further reduced, on account of the fact that certain menial posts, such as Water Boy, were brought within the purview of the grant in aid. Since it was not governed by any enactment, the Government initially issued an ordinance and thereafter, legislature has enacted the Act. By itself, the Act does not stipulate the percentages but vests the power with the Government to prescribe such percentages. G.O.Ms.No.320 was issued in exercise of that power and percentage was fixed for certain periods. Some controversy arose as to whether the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.1159 of 1999 regarding payment of maintenance grant at 6% would survive the Ordinance and the consequential Act. Though the writ petition filed challenging the same was allowed, the Division Bench has modified the judgment and validity of the Act was upheld. With that, the G.O. issued thereunder remains in tact. The result is that for the period subsequent to 01.04.1992, maintenance grant is to be released at 2%. The petitioner did not challenge either G.O.Ms.No.320 or the Act. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Act was further amended and certain administrative orders were also issued in exercise of power under Section (3) of that Act. In this scenario, it is difficult to accede to the request of the petitioner to direct the respondents to release the maintenance grant at 6%. At the same time, the respondents cannot avoid their obligation to pay the grant in aid at the rates that are permissible under the relevant provisions of law. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the respondents shall release the grant in aid payable to the institutions established by the petitioner in accordance with the rates that are prescribed under the relevant provisions of law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 11.12.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19654 of 1999 Date: 11.12.2008 JSU