Aided institution salary obligations continue despite withheld grant-in-aid; statutory remedies govern disputes over release of aid.

An aided educational institution does not lose its statutory status merely because grant-in-aid is temporarily withheld or not released, especially where the governing Act and Rules treat aid as subject to prescribed statutory mechanisms. The institution therefore remains bound to pay employees in the salary scale applicable to comparable Government staff, and non-release of grant does not excuse compliance with that obligation. Where grant-in-aid is disputed, the proper course is to pursue the remedies provided under the statutory framework. No mandamus was issued to compel release of grant-in-aid in these proceedings, and the direction for payment of full salary remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an educational institution continued to remain an aided institution and was bound to pay its employees pay and allowances not less than those prescribed for comparable Government staff merely because grant-in-aid had been withheld or not released for some time. (ii) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the State Government for release of grant-in-aid to enable the institution to meet its salary obligations.

Issue (i): Whether an educational institution continued to remain an aided institution and was bound to pay its employees pay and allowances not less than those prescribed for comparable Government staff merely because grant-in-aid had been withheld or not released for some time.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between a recognised institution and an aided institution. An aided institution was one that received maintenance grant from the State Government, and the relevant rules also treated grant-in-aid as a matter governed by discretionary sanction, conditions, stoppage, reduction, suspension, and appeal. The Court held that non-release of aid for a period, even if attributable to alleged defaults or administrative lapses, did not alter the institution's category once it had been treated as an aided institution under the Act and Rules. The proper remedy against stoppage or non-release of grant lay under the statutory mechanism, not by denying the employee's entitlement under the salary provision.

Conclusion: The institution remained bound by the salary obligation under the Act, and the employee was entitled to full pay and allowances in accordance with the statutory scale.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the State Government for release of grant-in-aid to enable the institution to meet its salary obligations.

Analysis: The petition was filed under the certiorari jurisdiction challenging the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that if grant-in-aid had been withheld contrary to the statutory scheme, the remedy available under the Rules had to be pursued. The Court declined to grant the requested direction in these proceedings and left the institution to avail itself of the lawful remedy available against the grant-related decision.

Conclusion: No mandamus was issued against the State Government in these proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the order directing payment of full salary to the employee was left undisturbed; the institution's grievance regarding grant-in-aid was not granted relief in this proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an institution falls within the statutory category of an aided institution, temporary non-release or withholding of grant-in-aid does not negate its statutory duty to pay employees in accordance with the prescribed Government-linked pay scale, and the proper remedy against grant decisions lies within the statutory framework.

---