JUDGMENT : Subhash Upadhyay, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from the date of including the school S.R.D. Bahuguna Inter College, Sevelakala, Dehradun under the Grant-In-Aid i.e. 28.2.2014. ii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iii) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The facts narrated in the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 03.07.2012 at the SRD Bahuguna Inter College, Sevelakala, Dehradun. The said institute is recognized by the Uttarakhand Education Board and was run by the Committee of Management. The Government of Uttarakhand took a decision to include the said institute into grant-in-aid and a notification dated 28.02.2014 was issued to the said effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary to the petitioner was not paid w.e.f. 28.02.2014 and as such he submitted a representation on 01.04.2017 for the payment of salary and when no decision was taken on the said representation then the present writ petition was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 50 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, the liability in respect of salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff is of the State Government. Section 50 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 reads as under: “ Section 50- Liability in respect of salary : (1) The State Government shall be liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every institution receiving maintenance grant from the State Government due in respect of any period from the date of the commencement of this Act. (2) The State Government may recover any amount in respect of which any liability is incurred by it under sub-section (1) by attachment of the income from the property belonging to or vested in the Institution as if that amount were an arrear of land revenue due from the institution receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. (2) The State Government may recover any amount in respect of which any liability is incurred by it under sub-section (1) by attachment of the income from the property belonging to or vested in the Institution as if that amount were an arrear of land revenue due from the institution receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to derogate from the liability of the institution for any such dues to the teacher or employee.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the posts were not sanctioned vide order dated 28.02.2014 which is a condition prerequisite and the institute was thereafter taken under token grant vide GO dated 01.02.2016 as such petitioner is not liable to be paid salary w.e.f. 28.02.2014. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision of token grant and vide notification dated 28.02.2014 when the institute was taken into grant-in-aid the posts were also created in the institute. He submits that after filing of the writ petition, the Government of Uttarakhand issued another notification dated 28.02.2019 wherein the earlier Government Order by which the institute was taken into token grant was obliterated and the Government Order dated 28.02.2014 was never cancelled. 7. He further submits that in similar circumstances, the State Government has issued notifications wherein the institutes which were earlier taken into grant-in-aid were put into token grant and the said order of putting the said institute into token grant was challenged in WPMS No.1820 of 2017. The said decision of the State Government of taking institutes into token grant was declared to be in contravention to the provisions of Section 50 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act. The said order was put into challenge in SPA No.166 of 2019, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2022 and the respondents have complied with the orders passed by the Court. 8. The said order was put into challenge in SPA No.166 of 2019, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2022 and the respondents have complied with the orders passed by the Court. 8. Learned counsel for the State was granted an opportunity to clarify as to how the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the order passed by the Writ Court as affirmed in the special appeal and it has been submitted that the case reliance on which has been placed by the petitioner is distinguishable as in the said case it is the institute which has come before the Court whereas in the present case the petitioner’s institute had accepted the subsequent Government Order and, thereafter, the petitioner has been adjusted vide order dated 26.11.2019 and is paid salary from the said date. The submission made in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit reads as under: “5. …However, it is to be clarified that writ petition was filed in the Hon'ble High Court by Manavta Higher Primary School, Gandhinagar, Nainital Institution regarding grant-in- aid recognition and financial assistance to its institution, whereas the petition No. 2261/SS/2017 has been filed by the petitioner himself regarding grant of financial benefits, salary etc. to him from the date of issue of Government Order No. 156 dated 28.02.2014. The said Government Order was related to creation of posts for inclusion of non-government recognized schools in the grant list. In the case involving Manavta Higher Primary School, Gandhinagar, Nainital, a token grant was granted to the school. The aforesaid school filed a petition seeking financial assistance. However, the petitioner's school, Shri Ravi Dutt Bahuguna Inter College, Dehradun, was included in the list of high school grants by the Uttarakhand Government through Government Order No. 302, dated 28.02.2019, cancelling the token grant allowed to the school. Paragraph 2 of Government Order No. 302, dated 28.02.2019, clearly states, "In view of the school fulfilling all the criteria for inclusion in the high school grant list, the current financial year has been extended by cancelling the token grant allowed through Government Order No. 1657/GGPT.4/2016- 6(33)/2015, dated 21.12.2016 approval is granted for inclusion in the list of salary grants at the high school level, based on the budget provision available under the relevant standard item, from the year 2018-19. (Annexure-2, page-10 of Miscellaneous Application No. 15456/2025) Shri Ravi Dutt Bahuguna Inter College, Dehradun, while accepting the financial grant, submitted the file for financial adjustment of the working teachers, in which, after examining the desired educational and training qualification of the petitioner, the petitioner has been adjusted to the concerned post by the order letter dated 26.11.2019 of the then Chief Education Officer, Dehradun.” 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 2012 as an Assistant Teacher and his services have been absorbed vide order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Chief Education Officer, Dehradun as Assistant Teacher LT Grade Mathematics. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for the post and his initial appointment in the year 2012 by the Committee of Management was as such in accordance with law. 11. The issue involved in the present writ petition is that as to whether the writ petitioner was entitled for salary w.e.f. 28.02.2014 when the institute was taken into grant-in-aid or is entitled for salary from the date of issuance of absorption order dated 26.11.2019. In the writ petition filed by an institute i.e. Manavta Higher Primary School, Gandhinagar, the said institute was taken into grant-in-aid on 04.02.2014, however, the same was placed under token grant vide order dated 23.12.2016. The said action of the respondent was put to challenge and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court allowed the writ petition. 12. The Hon’ble Court considered the concept of token grant and held in paragraph no.6 as hereunder: “6. Even on repeated query of this Court seeking explanation as to what is meant by a "token grant", the learned State Counsel could not give any satisfactory reply. The most glaring aspect of it all is that there is nothing like a "token grant" as is now being given to the school vide order dated 23.12.2016. To what purpose this "token grant" has been given and under which provision has it been given, has not been explained, except that it is mentioned in the Government Order dated 04.01.2017.” 13. Further in paragraph no.15 the Court held as under: “15. To what purpose this "token grant" has been given and under which provision has it been given, has not been explained, except that it is mentioned in the Government Order dated 04.01.2017.” 13. Further in paragraph no.15 the Court held as under: “15. Under Section 50 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006, it is the liability of the State Government to pay salary of teachers and employees of every institution which is under its grant-in-aid. This Court has absolutely no doubt in its mind that as the present school, with which we are concerned, has come under grant-in-aid on orders passed by the executive head of the State ie. the Governor, hence, the State Government cannot back track on its commitment and its order.” 14. The said order was put to challenge in special appeal no.166 of 2019 and the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no.7 held as under:- “7) Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, including the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Firstly, the respondent school was granted recognition, which recognition has not been withdrawn or recalled. Secondly, on the basis of the said recognition, the State Government has passed the order dated 04.02.2014, sanctioning grant-in-aid in respect of the respondent school. Even that order has not been recalled till date, and continues to remain in force.” 15. Coming to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the grant-in-aid order dated 28.02.2014 reveals that the said Government Order has been issued by which not only the said institute was placed under grant-in-aid but post of Head Master and Assistant Teacher was also created. 16. The said fact is evident from a bare reading of the order dated 28.02.2014 wherein while referring to the various posts created at serial no.2 and serial no.6 whereby posts of Head Master and Assistant Teacher were created, the following averment has been made: dz0 la0 inuke osru ¼#0 esa½ inksa dh la[;k 2- iz/kkuk/;kid ¼gkbZLdwy½ 15]600&39]100 xszM is 5400 02 in ¼dz0la0&04 ,oa 09 ij vafdr fo|ky; gsrq½A 5- lgk;d v/;kikd ¼b.Vj@gkbZLdwy½ 9300&34800 xzsM is 4600 27 in ¼dz0la0&02 04] 07 ,oa 09] ij vafdr fo|ky; A 17. In the enclosure to the said Government Order the name of the institute Ravidutt Bahuguna is shown at serial no.9. In the enclosure to the said Government Order the name of the institute Ravidutt Bahuguna is shown at serial no.9. Thus, there is no dispute that at the time of issuance of the Government Order posts were also created in the petitioner’s institute. Thus, the salaries for the aforementioned posts were to be paid by the State Government and the said order of grant-in-aid has been passed in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Uttarakhand. The order of placing the institute into token grant was obliterated by the order dated 28.02.2019 in pursuance of which the petitioner’s services were absorbed on 26.11.2019. The order dated 28.02.2019 reads as under:- 18. The said order dated 28.02.2019 in unequivocal terms specifies that the GO dated 28.02.2014 is not cancelled and on the contrary it provides that the other conditions of the Government Order dated 28.02.2014 would remain intact. The claim of the petitioner for payment of salary w.e.f. 28.02.2014 i.e. from the issuance of the GO thus cannot be denied by the respondents for their own fault. 19. The State Government vide GO dated 28.02.2014 had sanctioned the posts and the respondents were required to go ahead with the process of formal absorption of the services of the petitioner. However, the respondents decided to place the petitioner’s institute into token grant as was done in similar other cases. The said decision of the respondents to place the similarly situated institute under token grant was found to be improper and the writ petition filed by the aforesaid institute was allowed. 20. Thus, the mere fact that the institute wherein the petitioner is imparting education has not come before the Court would not disentitle the petitioner to claim relief for which he is otherwise entitled, as per law. 21. In view of the above, the Court is of the considered view that the respondents are liable to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of salary w.e.f. the issuance of the GO dated 28.02.2014. 22. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of salary w.e.f. 28.02.2014 and to grant the arrears of salary w.e.f. the said date i.e. from the date when the institute was taken into grant-in-aid. 22. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of salary w.e.f. 28.02.2014 and to grant the arrears of salary w.e.f. the said date i.e. from the date when the institute was taken into grant-in-aid. The said decision shall be taken by the respondents in the light of the observation made above and in the light of the order passed by the Court in writ WPMS No.1820 of 2017 as affirmed by the Court in Special Appeal No.166 of 2019. 23. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 24. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 25. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.