JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This judgment will dispose of Writ-A Nos. 10560 of 2020, 2190 of 2020 and 21463 of 2019, as these involve common questions of fact and law. Writ-A No. 10560 of 2020 shall be treated as the leading case, where pleadings have been exchanged and arguments addressed; of course, with reference to the other two petitions as well. This Court proposes to notice facts from the leading case.

2. The petitioners are assistant teachers and headmasters, either working or retired, who have been appointed to Primary Schools in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Rules of 1975') as well as other Government Orders issued from time to time. These institutions are established and managed by Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 through a Committee of Management. All the schools, where the petitioners were appointed, are duly recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972'). They are in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government, but with the difference that unlike some other primary schools that are in receipt of grant-in-aid from the Department of Basic Education, the schools where the petitioners were appointed receive grants from the Department of Social Welfare.

3. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to all retiral benefits under the triple benefit scheme, that is to say, Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance and Pension by virtue of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided-Educational Institution Employee's Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1964). The question involved in this petition is whether the Rules of 1964 would apply to teachers of primary schools, run by a private management, recognized by the Department of Basic Education and funded by the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. While the petitioners say that they are entitled to receive all benefits under the Rules of 1964, including pension, the stand of the State is that there is a distinction between primary schools run by a private management recognized by the Basic Education Board, where grant is provided by the Department of Social Welfare and those schools run by a private management, where grant is extended by the Department of Basic Education. This distinction is sought to be drawn on the basis of a Government Order dated 31.03.1994.

4. The petitioners say that the Rules of 1964 do not make a distinction between private schools, duly recognized and aided by one Government Department or the other. This distinction between the two sets of schools sought to be drawn by the State on one hand and repudiated by the petitioners on the other, would be alluded to in some detail later in this judgment.

5. It would be apposite to refer to the origins of this issue and the earliest litigation between parties that has led to the order impugned in the present petition. A writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2766 of 1996 was instituted by a certain Sangarsh Samiti Shikshak Samudaya Vibhagiya Pathshala, U.P., Allahabad through its Secretary and five others, all teachers espousing the cause of teachers in primary institutions, that were in receipt of grant-in-aid from the Department of Social Welfare of the State Government. The petition was claimed to be filed on behalf of all such teachers in a representative capacity. The petition was heard and allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 01.11.1996, ordering in the following terms:

“This petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the Respondent no.1 to pay the same salary, allowances and other benefits to the teachers of Primary schools under the Department of Social Welfare as is being paid and given to the teachers of primary schools run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. or which are privately