Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal Nos. 2366 67 of 1988 etc. From the Judgment and order dated 21.2.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 5353 of 1984. Pankaj Kalra	 B.S. Gupta	 P.C. Kapur and section Mitter for the Appellants. Rajinder Sachar	 D.K. Garg	 Mahabir Singh and A.K. Goel for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK	 CJ. Special leave to appeal is granted in both the special leave petitions. The petitioners are teachers employed in various recognised aided private schools in the State of Haryana. The schools are maintained under private management. They receive financial aid from the State Government. The petitioners have come to Court alleging that teachers employed in Government aided private schools are entitled to parity with the teachers employed in Government schools in the matter of pay scales and other emoluments such as Dearness Allowance	 House Rent Allowance	 City Compensatory Allowance	 684 Medical Reimbursement and Gratuity	 etc. It appears that prior to A 1967 there was considerable disparity in the emoluments of teachers employed in the same State	 and the Government of India appointed the Kothari Commission to examine the conditions of service of teachers with the object of improving the standards of education in the country. Among other things	 the Kothari Commission recommended that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements such as Government	 local bodies or private organisations should be the same. Almost all the States	 including the State of Haryana	 decided to implement the recommendations of the Kothari Commission. The State of Haryana declared in January	 1968 that the revised rates suggested by the Kothari Commission would be made effective from 1 December	 1967	 and that the grades of teachers of privately managed schools would be revised on the pattern of the grades of teachers working in Government schools. As the deficit between the original grades and the revised grades was found too burden some for the managements of the aided schools to bear	 the State decided to meet the increased expenditure entirely in regard to Pay and Dearness Allowance. The State Government followed the principle of parity between the teachers working in aided schools and Government schools until 1979. In 1979	 the pay scale of teachers in Government schools was revised by the State after the report of the Pay Commission	 but in the case of the teachers of aided schools the revision was effected two years later. The petitioners allege that the salary and other emoluments paid to the teachers of aided schools have fallen far behind the emoluments paid to the teachers in Government schools and this Court should interfere in order to remove such discrimination. We are told that there are about sixty thousand teachers in Government schools while a mere four thousand teachers are employed in aided schools. According to the petitioners	 to provide education in schools is the constitutional responsibility of the Government	 and this is reflected in the deep and pervasive control exercised by the Government over the running of aided schools. It is pointed out that the control is exercised over almost all areas of management. The Committee of management has to be approved by the State Government	 so have the strength of the teaching and the other staff as well as the qualifications and other conditions of eligibility for appointment to the staff. The mode of selection and the determination of seniority are subject to the directions of the State Government and teachers cannot be dismissed	 removed or reduced in rank without the prior approval of the State authorities. The tuition fee	 as well as free ships	 concession and scholarships are fixed by the State Government	 which is also empowered to give instructions in 685 regard to the time table	 working hours	 pupil ratio	 attendance and workload. The financial resources and the heads of income and expenditure are indicated by the State Government. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length	 and we find general agreement between the parties that there is no reason for discrimination between the teachers employed in aided schools and those employed in Government schools so far as the salaries and Additional Dearness Allowances are concerned. The State Government does not accept the claim to parity in respect of other heads of allowance put forward by the petitioners. We were at one time disposed to ruling on the question whether the responsibility for providing education in schools belongs to the State Government	 and therefore whether there is a corresponding responsibility on the State Government to ensure that in aided schools the teachers are entitled to the same emoluments as are provided for teachers in Government schools. We do not	 however	 propose to enter upon this question in these cases as we are satisfied from the developments which have followed after the hearing on the merits that it would be more appropriate to dispose of these cases by a short order. The State Government has expressed its readiness to reimburse the payment of ten instalments of the Additional Dearness Allowance	 but not the twenty five Additional Dearness Allowance instalments released after 1 April	 1981. It appears that the grant in aid given by the State Government to these aided schools covers the deficit to the extent of seventy five per cent of the approved expenditure. The approved expenditure extends to the salaries paid to the teaching and non teaching staff	 which includes the Pay and Dearness Allowance and Interim Relief before 1 April	 1981 and the Pay and Additional Dearness Allowance beyond 1 April	 1981	 the deficit expenditure minus income and certain other items	 but does not include House Rent Allowance	 Medical Allowance	 City Compensatory Allowance and the other heads claimed by the petitioners. In our opinion	 the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same pay scale and Dearness Allowance as teachers in Government schools for the entire period claimed by the petitioners	 and that the expenditure on that account should be apportioned between the State and the Management in the same proportion in which they share the burden of the existing emoluments of the teachers. The State Government meets the Dearness Allowance liability to the extent of seventy five per cent of the amount. Ten instalments representing the State Government 's liability shall be paid by the State Government in two equal parts	 the first part being payable within three months from today and the remaining part being pay 686 able by 31 March	 1989. The State Government shall also pay the remaining twenty five instalments	 the entire amount being payable in five equal parts	 each part being paid every six months	 the first such part being payable by 30 September	 1989. The State Government shall not be liable to pay for the period covered by these 35 instalments any amount on account of House Rent Allowance	 City Compensatory Allowance and the other allowances claimed by the petitioners. The State Government will also take up with the managements of the aided schools the question of bringing about parity between the teachers of aided schools and the teachers of Government schools for the period following that to which the aforesaid thirty five instalments relate	 so that a scheme for payment may be evolved after having regard to the different allowances claimed by the petitioners. In the case of teachers who have retired or who have died in service during the pendency of these cases	 payment of the first ten instalments shall be made to the retired teachers and to the legal representatives of the deceased teachers within three months from today. The appeals and the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. H.L.C. Appeals & Petitions disposed of.

The Kothari Commission appointed by the Government of India to examine the conditions of service of teachers with the object of improving the standards of education in the country recommended inter alia that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements such as Government	 local bodies or private organisations should be the same	 and	 falling in line with other States	 the State of Haryana decided to implement the same with effect from 1 December	 1967. As the deficit between the original grades and the revised grades was found too burdensome for the managements of the aided schools to bear	 the State decided to meet the increased expenditure entirely in regard to Pay and Dearness Allowance. The State Government followed the principle of parity between the teachers working in aided schools and Government schools until 1979. In 1979	 the pay scale of teachers in Government schools was revised by the State after the report of the Pay Commission	 but in the case of the teachers of aided schools the revision was effected two years later. The appellants and the writ petitioners	 who were teachers employed in various recognised aided private schools	 alleged that the salary and other emoluments such as Dearness Allowance	 House Rent Allowance	 City Compensatory Allowance	 Medical Reimbursement	 Gratuity	 etc.	 paid to them had fallen far behind the emoluments paid to the teachers in Government schools and this Court should interfere in order to remove such discrimination since the constitutional responsibility of providing education in schools devolved on the Government and it exercised deep and pervasive control over the running of aided schools. Disposing of the appeal and petitions	 ^ HELD: There is general agreement between the parties that there is no reason for discrimination between the teachers employed in aided 683 schools and those employed in Government schools far as the salaries and Additional Dearness Allowances are concerned. The State Government has expressed its readiness to reimburse the payment of ten instalments of the Additional Dearness Allowance	 but not the twenty five Additional Dearness Allowance instalments released after 1 April	 1981. In our opinion	 the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same pay scale and Dearness Allowance as teachers in Government schools for the entire period claimed by the petitioners	 and that the expenditure on that account should be apportioned between the State and the Management in the same proportion in which they share the burden of the existing emoluments of the teachers. [685B C	 E G] The State Government will also take up with the managements of the aided schools the question of bringing about Party between the teachers of aided schools and the teachers of Government schools so that 9 scheme for payment may be evolved after having regard to the different allowances claimed by the petitioners. [686C]