IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13942 of 2009 1. YOGENDRA RAI S/O LATE RAM KHELAWAN RAI VILL- DAMODARPUR, P.S. KURHANI, DISTT. VAISHALI 2. JAI NARAIN RAI S/O LATE RAMASHIS RAI VILL- CHAKALIA, P.S. GOROUL, DISTT. VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, BUDHA MARG, PATNA 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION VAISHALI ----------- 2. 22.01.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioners’ prayer is for quashing of order dated 02.02.2009 contained in Memo No. 37 (Vidhi) issued by the Director, Secondary Education, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary as untrained teacher w.e.f. 05.07.1983, which is the date of recognition of their service instead of making payment of salary as untrained teachers w.e.f. 23.03.1991, that is the date of issuance of order recognizing services of the petitioners. Petitioners’ case is that as provided U/s 4(2) of Bihar Aarajkiya Vidyalaya (Prabandh Evam Grahan) Adhiniyam, 1981, from the date of taking over, the teachers will become government employees. Petitioners were appointed by the Managing Committee of the school on 01.02.1971 and their services were thus, recognized w.e.f. 05.07.1983. Once their services were recognized as government employees, they became entitled for the salary from the date of recognition and not from the date of 2 issuance of order. Petitioners approached the authorities for the relief in the light of order passed by this court in the case of Raghunath Roy (C.W.J.C. No. 8363 of 1999) but their claim has been rejected on the ground of delay. On perusal of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8363 of 1999, it transpires that the relief was allowed to the petitioner in that writ application considering the provisions u/S 4(2) of the Taking over Act. The provisions, under the Act will be applicable in case of all similarly situated persons. It should have been allowed to all similarly situated persons, even though they did not approach the authorities or made claim for that. Since the direction had been issued in the case of Raghunath Roy, under the legal provisions, it should not have been denied by the authorities to the petitioners on account of delay. This writ application is being disposed of. Petitioners are directed to represent again before the authorities alongwith this order. Respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioners in view of section 4(2) of the Taking over Act as well as the judgment and order passed by this court in Raghunath Roy. The order must be passed on representation of the petitioners within four weeks from the date of filing such representation. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)