LPA No.8 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. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate for respondent No.1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1943 of 1996. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this Letter Patent Appeal are that respondent, Rajesh Kumar was recruited as Laboratory Attendant in Nehru High School, Kaina, district Shimla, H.P. He filed CWP No.1943 of 1996 seeking direction to the State to provide 95% grant-in-aid to the school in which he was employed. The same was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 31.8.2004. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood has vehemently argued that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Jude is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the respondent was not eligible for the release of grant-in-aid. On the other hand, Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has supported the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, dated 31.8.2004. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment rendered in CWP No.1943 of 1996 carefully. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all the pleas raised by the State at the time of hearing. A great emphasis was laid by the State Government before the learned Single Judge that the grant-in-aid was not payable in case additional staff is engaged by the privately managed schools or there was departure from the staffing pattern of the Government schools. The learned Single Judge has categorically laid down that staffing pattern made no difference or distinction so far as the requirement of additional staff employed by the privately managed schools was concerned. The learned Single Judge has gone to the extent that if this situation was visualized, it should have been incorporated in the H.P. Education Code itself. He has also, by relying on the judgments of Apex Court in State of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and others, (1995) 4 SCC 507 as well as in Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and others, (2000) 2 SCC 42, repelled the contention of the State of financial crunch. 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 infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Letter Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 8.6.2005 and confirmed vide order dated 7.9.2005 is vacated. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 21, 2009. (sck)