IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1636 of 1995 1. LALU MALI son of late Nathu Mali, resident of Village Jasauli, Police Station Baruraj, District Muzaffarpur, at present Peon, Middle School, Jasauli, PS Baruraj, District Muzaffarpur 2. Ramlakhan Thakur, son of late Narain Thakur, resident of Village Manpura, Police Station Kanti, District Muzaffarpur, at present Peon, Middle School, Hardaspur, PS Kanti, District Muzaffarpur 3. Ram Bilash Sah, son of Ram Narain Sah, resident of Village Mahanth Maniari, PS Kurhani, District Muzaffarpur, at present Peon, Middle School, Mahanth Naniari, PS Kurhani, District Muzaffarpur Petitioners -Appellants Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur Respondents -Respondents ----------- 06- 14.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel no.16. This appeal under clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, has been preferred by the appellants of LPA No. 1636 of 1995, and are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.11.95, passed in CWJC No. 3871 of 1983 (Lalu Mali vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. Before we proceed further, we would like to record that on account of non-compliance of the order dated 21.1.2009 the appeal stood dismissed against respondent nos. 1 and 2. However, we shall take up the matter on merit. 3. The petitioners had preferred CWJC No.3871 of 1983 with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay their salary – current as well as the arrears, in the - 2 - prescribed scale of Peon with effect from 1.1.1971. The claim of the writ petitioners was based on the judgment of this Court in CWJC No.1814 of 1977, disposed of on 2.2.1978. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the case of the petitioners is not at all covered by the said judgment. We entirely agree with the judgment in question. There is no ground for interference in the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl