Judgment : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, same were tagged and heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. 2. Precisely, the question which has fallen for adjudication before this Court is whether Government can restrict Grant-in-Aid or if it can, whether the salaries etc. of staff of Government aided college can be stopped/restricted. If not, who will defray the expenses. However, before adjudicating the aforesaid question, it may be apt to discuss and elaborate upon the relevant Acts, Rules and Notifications issued by the Government regarding salaries, Grant-in-Aid etc. to Government-aided colleges in Hima- chal Pradesh. 3. Section 6 of the H.P. Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Em- ployees) Act, 1994, provides as under: “6. Salary. – The scales of pay and other allowance and privileges of the employees of a College shall be such as may, from time to time, be specified by the State Government.” 4. Under aforesaid Act, the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affi- liated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994 have been framed, rule 8 whereof provides as under: ““Quantum of the Grant-in-aid.- (a) The amount of grant-in-aid to be released to a College shall be limited to 95% of the deficit of the es- timated income (as detailed under) and the expenditure likely to be incurred on payment of the salary of the approved staff (Teaching and nonteaching) during one financial year subject to adjustments of over and under payments, in accordance with the norms at which the salary is being paid to the staff in Government Colleges. The re- quirements of Grant-in-aid in respect of the Colleges for the ensuing year shall be submitted by each College in the form of budget to the Director of Education by 31st October (on a date notified by the Di- rector) of each year, stating numbers of post of Principal, Lecturers (subject-wise), Superintendent, Assistant, Clerks and others and fi- nancial implications along with similar statistical data for at least two previous years with reasons to justify each increase and decrease.” 5. Vide Notification No. EDN-A-Ga(10)-5/98, dated 16th March, 2008, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Higher Education Department, in com- pliance to this Court’s direction dated 14.8.2006, passed in CWP No. 519 of 2000 titled Dr. Harish Lakhanpal & others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, notified Himachal Pradesh Non-Government College Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2008. Vide Notification No. EDN-A-Ga(10)-5/98, dated 16th March, 2008, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Higher Education Department, in com- pliance to this Court’s direction dated 14.8.2006, passed in CWP No. 519 of 2000 titled Dr. Harish Lakhanpal & others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, notified Himachal Pradesh Non-Government College Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2008. Rules 3 and 4, provided as under: “3. Objects of Grants The object of the grants in-aid contemplated by these rules is to financially assist non-Government colleges teaching. In arts, Commerce and Science subjects at under Graduate levels till they become self-reliant. 4. Extent of Application Grants-in-Aid will be admissible for meeting, a part of the sala- ry expenses in respect of approved staff (teaching & non-teaching) Provided that the Grant-in-Aid to a College shall not exceed 50% of the revenue gap (total expenditure on salary of approved teaching and non-teaching staff minus the total income from all sources). The actual amount of Grant-in-Aid will however, depend upon the availability of resources and budgetary allocation with the Government for this purpose.” 6. Vide Notification dated 6th October, 2009, second amendment was made to above rules, thereby inserting following two provisos after first pro- viso to rule-4: “Provided further that colleges which were getting Grant-in-Aid under the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in- Aid rules, 1994 shall be provided Grant-in-Aid only for those teaching and non-teaching staff for whom Grant-in-Aid was being provided prior to notification of Himachal Pradesh Grant-in-Aid to non- Government Colleges Rules, 2008 and the amount of annual Grant- in-Aid to these colleges shall be restricted up to the amount of annual Grant-in-Aid provided against each of these teaching and non- teaching staff in these colleges prior to 31.3.2008. On accrual of any incremental and other benefits after 31.3.2008, no additional Grant- in-Aid shall be provided to these colleges. Further, the Grant-in-Aid shall be reduced as and when the staff gets retired. Provided further that the Grant-in-Aid shall be provided w.e.f. 1.4.2008.” 7. Vide Notification dated 9.9.2010, the Government of Himachal Pra- desh, Higher Education Department, revised the scales of pay of teaching personnel of the Government Aided Private Colleges on pattern of Govern- ment Colleges, as under: 8. Further, the Grant-in-Aid shall be reduced as and when the staff gets retired. Provided further that the Grant-in-Aid shall be provided w.e.f. 1.4.2008.” 7. Vide Notification dated 9.9.2010, the Government of Himachal Pra- desh, Higher Education Department, revised the scales of pay of teaching personnel of the Government Aided Private Colleges on pattern of Govern- ment Colleges, as under: 8. On 27.8.2014, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Higher Education Department issued Notification No. EDN-A-Ka(3)-6/2013, amending the Himachal Pradesh Grant-in-Aid to Non Government Colleges Rules, 2008 and notifying the Himachal Pradesh Grant-in-Aid to Non-Government Col- leges (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2014, making following amendment: “Amendment to Rule 4: In Rule 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Grant- in-Aid to Non Government Colleges Rules, 2008, second and third proviso notified vide this department notification No. EDN-A-Ga(10)- 3/2008, dated 16th October, 2009, shall be substituted as under: Provided further that the amount of the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the teaching & Non-teaching staff of four colleges i.e. ST. Bede’s College Shimla, DAV College Kangra, DAV College Kotkhai and MLSM Col- lege Sundernagar, which were getting Grant-in-Aid under the Hima- chal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994 shall not exceed 95% of the revenue gap. (Total ex- penditure on salary of approved teaching and non teaching staff mi- nus the total income from all sources. Provided further that the revised Grant-in-Aid shall be payable w.e.f. 1.1.2014 and no part of the financial liability accrued due to annual increments, promotions, payment of D.A. etc. between 1.4.2008 and 31.12.2013 shall be paid as Grant-in-Aid. For calculating Grant-in-Aid admissible w.e.f. 1.1.2014 financial benefits earned between 1.4.2008 and 31.12.2013 shall not be counted. (amended vide Notifi- cation dated 24.9.2014 to read as, “For calculating Grant-in-Aid admissible w.e.f. 01.01.2014, financial benefits earned between 1-4-2008 and 31.12.2013 shall be counted on Notional basis.” 9. Common facts of present petitions are that the petitioners Dr. Latesh Kapoor and Sanjay Kumar were appointed as Lecturers in Commerce and petitioner-Neerupama Kohli as Lecturer in Economics and at present all the petitioners are working as Associate Professors in their disciplines with res- pondent No.3 i.e. Maharaja Laxman Sen Memorial College, Sundernagar, which is affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University. Respondent No. 3 was in receipt of Grant-in-Aid. Latesh Kapoor and Sanjay Kumar were appointed as Lecturers in Commerce and petitioner-Neerupama Kohli as Lecturer in Economics and at present all the petitioners are working as Associate Professors in their disciplines with res- pondent No.3 i.e. Maharaja Laxman Sen Memorial College, Sundernagar, which is affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University. Respondent No. 3 was in receipt of Grant-in-Aid. On 1.5.2006, petitioners was awarded selection scale of Rs.12,000-420-18300 with effect from 1.1.2006 and after rendering three years’ service, they became eligible for revised pay scale of 37,400- 67,000 i.e. Pay Band IV. Petitioners are aggrieved on account of the fact that when matter was taken up through Principal of the College, with res- pondent No.2, for grant of monetary benefits on account of grant of revised pay scale in Pay Band IV, it declined the same, by stating that grant has been frozen as on 31.3.2008 and financial benefits after 31.3.2008 are to be borne by the College, by way of generating their own resources as per Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2008. 10. Pleadings adduced on record reveal that earlier the Grant-in-Aid be- ing received by respondent No.3 was 95% as per Rules supra, which was later on frozen as on 31.3.2008. Later on, vide Notification dated 27.8.2014, Grant-in-Aid was restored to 95% and vide Notification dated 24.9.2014, it was clarified that the financial benefits earned between 1.4.2008 and 31.12.2013 shall be counted on notional basis. 11. The petitioners represented to respondent No.3 requesting to pay the financial benefits accrued in their favour, on account of revision of pay scales etc. Vide letter dated 24.4.2017 (Annexure P/5), Principal of respon- dent No.3 communicated to one Sanjay Sharma, that arrears on account of promotion to PB IV cannot be granted in view of Notification dated 24.9.2014, which provides that ‘financial benefits earned between 01.04.2008 and 31.12.2014 shall be counted on notional basis’. It is in this background that the petitioners have approached this Court, seeking follow- ing common reliefs: “i) That the respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to enforce the provisions of H.P. Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Employees’) Act, 1994 and corrigendum dated 24.09.2014 vide Annexure P-3 alongwith let- ter dated 24.04.2017 vide Annexure P-5 issued by respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to release the fi- nancial benefits of pay band IV of pay scale i.e. Rs.37,400-67,000/- earned by the petitioner between the period w.e.f. 01.05.2009 to 31.12.2013 with all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 12% till the date of actual payment.” 12. In reply filed by respondent No.3, its stand is that the claim of peti- tioners is belated as they are seeking revised pay scale with effect from 10.7.2009 and petitions have been filed in the year 2019; that the college is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Act, 1860; Grant-in- Aid was reduced from 95% to 50% and further Grant-in-Aid was frozen vide Notification dated 6.10.2009, as on 31.3.2008; it is facing financial distress due to reduction of Grant-in-Aid and it is not generating sufficient funds to meet the expenses; its obligation is only to 5% of share towards salary and other financial benefits to approved teaching and non-teaching staff. Refer- ence has been made to judgment dated 26.5.2010, passed in CWP No. 3096 of 2008, whereby this Court granted benefits of senior scale with ef- fect from 1.1.1996 and Selection Grade with effect from 1.8.2000 to the petitioner therein and thereafter matter was taken up with the Government, which released the grants to meet the said direction and funds were re- leased by the Government to satisfy the order passed by this Court, in fa- vour of petitioner in aforesaid writ petition. 13. So far reply of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, its simpliciter stand is that Grant-in-Aid was frozen to all 95% GIA colleges on 31.3.2008 and as such, increments and other benefits accrued after 31.3.2008 are to be borne by College/Management by generating their own revenue. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the plead- ings adduced on record. 15. From the replies, it is clear that none of respondents has denied the eligibility of the petitioners to higher pay band, rather, matter is being tossed between one another. Respondent No.3 has taken shelter to the Govern- ment’s decision to freeze the Grant-in-Aid and to count the monetary bene- fits accrued between 31.3.2008 to 31.12.2013, on notional basis and Gov- ernment is trying to shirk off from its responsibility. Respondent No.3 has taken shelter to the Govern- ment’s decision to freeze the Grant-in-Aid and to count the monetary bene- fits accrued between 31.3.2008 to 31.12.2013, on notional basis and Gov- ernment is trying to shirk off from its responsibility. Respondent No.3 has taken a stand that since it is under financial distress and not able to meet the expenditure on salary of the Staff, as such, it is for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to redress the grievance of the petitioner. 16. Before deciding the present controversy, it would be apt to take note of order dated 20.6.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1097/2004 titled Rajinder Sharma v. State of H.P. and others and connected matter. The is-sue in the above petition was akin to the one at hand here. In that case al- so, Grant-in-Aid was frozen by the Central Government/State Government and the College in which petitioners were working did not pay the higher pay scales, on account of freezing of the Grant-in-Aid. This court, while al- lowing the writ petitions, directed the respondents therein to grant senior scale to the petitioners from due date. It would relevant to take note of fol- lowing observation made by this Court, in the above order: “Since the Court has held that the petitioner was entitled to se- nior scale with effect from 14.9.1996, he was entitled to selection grade immediately after completion of five years i.e. 14.9.2001. The petitioner though has been granted the selection grade of Rs. 12,000-18,300 but with effect from 27.7.2003. There is a rid- er as noticed above to the effect that no additional grant-in-aid will be sanctioned by the Government for the purpose of release of selection grade of Rs. 12,000-18,300. This rider has been put by the State on the basis of letter dated 6th August, 2002 which was reiterated in letter dated 20.6.2005 whereby it was also mentioned that the selection grade will be High Court of H.P. paid with effect from 27.7.1998. The petitioner is entitled to get his salary, other allowances and privileges at par with the teach- ers serving in the Government Colleges. The petitioner was fully eligible initially after completion of five years of service to get the senior scale in the revised pay scale and thereafter to get the se- lection grade after putting in five years service in senior scale. The petitioner was fully eligible initially after completion of five years of service to get the senior scale in the revised pay scale and thereafter to get the se- lection grade after putting in five years service in senior scale. The petitioner’s rights flow from Annexure R-3/5 read with An- nexure R-3/6. The petitioner has acquired vested rights to get his salary on the basis of Annexure R-3/5 and R-3/6. Consequently, respondents No.1 and 2 could not freeze the grant-in-aid by is- suing letter dated 6th August, 2002. The condition of service of Lecturers serving in the private aided colleges are governed un- der the Himachal Pradesh Aided Colleges (Security of Service ofEmployees) Act, 1994 read with the Himachal Pradesh Non- Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994. Once the State Government has undertaken to defray the expenditure towards the salary as per the norms by which the salary is being paid to the staff in Government Colleges, Annexure R-1 dated 6th August, 2002 could not be issued. Respondents also could not deny the petitioner and similarly situate persons the senior scale with effect from the due date.” 17. The substance of above observation is that the Act, 1994 and Rules, 1994 govern the service conditions of employees of aided college, which provide that salaries of the staff of the Government aided college shall be as determined by the Government from time to time. 18. Besides this, the Government have enacted Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2008, with the object to financially assist non-Government colleges teach- ing, in Arts, Commerce and Science subjects at under Graduate levels till they become self-reliant. Thus, the Government is under obligation to pro- vide Grant-in-Aid to the Government aided colleges and by simply issuing Notification that the benefits earned by an employee for a specific period, shall be counted on notional basis, it cannot escape from its statutory obli- gations. 19. Otherwise also, this court is of the view that even if grant was re- duced for a specific period or was frozen, petitioner and other similarly si- tuate persons might have received full salaries. If it is so, then arrears on account of revision of pay scales, for that period cannot be counted on no- tional basis and same are to be paid in actual. 20. Now, the question which has cropped up before this Court is, who is liable to pay the amount to the petitioner. If it is so, then arrears on account of revision of pay scales, for that period cannot be counted on no- tional basis and same are to be paid in actual. 20. Now, the question which has cropped up before this Court is, who is liable to pay the amount to the petitioner. First and foremost, it is the duty of employer to pay due and admissible salary to its employees. Petitioner, who is directly under respondent no.3, is right in claiming arrears on account of grant of Pay Band IV and arrears incident thereto. Respondent No.3 is bound to pay the salaries to its teaching staff, as per S.6 of the Act, 1994, as per scales determined by the State Government. As per Rules, 1994, object of the Grant-in-Aid Rules is to provide financial assistance to Gov- ernment aided colleges and thus, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are under obligation to provide grants to the Government aided colleges. 21. Taking cue from earlier judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court, in cases supra and past precedent, this court is of the considered view that it is the responsibility of respondent No.3 to pay due and admissible sala- ry/arrears to the petitioner, as per S.6 of the Act, 1994 and if it is under fi- nancial crunch and unable to defray the expenses, it is statutory duty of State Government to ensure that provisions of 1994 Act and Rules are im- plemented. 22. So far objection taken by respondent No.3 regarding delay and lach- es is concerned, petitioner has explained the delay by stating that he came to know regarding payment of arrears to other staff of the college and the- reafter, he applied for information under Right to Information Act, 2005 in 2018 and ultimately, petition was filed in 2019. Another objection raised by respondent no.3 that it is respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are appropriate authorities for redressal of grievance of petitioner does not stand ground as it is primary employer of petitioner and all the obligations are cast upon it to pay salaries and arrears etc. to the petitioner, including arrears on account of revision of pay scales. 23. 1 and 2, who are appropriate authorities for redressal of grievance of petitioner does not stand ground as it is primary employer of petitioner and all the obligations are cast upon it to pay salaries and arrears etc. to the petitioner, including arrears on account of revision of pay scales. 23. Another objection raised by respondent No.3 that it is a ‘society’ reg- istered under Societies Registration Act, therefore not amenable to writ ju- risdiction is also not sustainable, in view of the fact that it is affiliated to Hi- machal Pradesh University, conditions of service of its teaching staff are governed by the Act and further it is in receipt of a major share of Grant-in- Aid. 24. So far another objection taken by respondents is concerned that the petitioners did not challenge the Notifications regarding freezing of Grant-in- Aid, counting benefits earned during specific period on notional basis, this court is of the view that said matter was between the management of College and the Government and it was for the respondent College to either challenge the same, or seek additional grants from the State Government to defray expenses of salaries to its staff. 25. Therefore, in view of above, all the petitions are allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to pay the actual monetary benefits on account of arrears accrued due to grant of pay band IV with effect from 1.5.2009 to 31.12.2013, within a period of six weeks. In case respondent No.3 is unable to meet the expenses, it shall take up the matter with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for release of grant, which shall be considered positively by them, within two weeks, so that arrears are released to the petitioners within above time frame. All the petitions stand disposed of in afore terms. Pending applica- tions, if any, in all the petitions, also stand disposed of.