IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4799 of 2009 MD.SHAMIMUDDIN W i t h CWJC No.4800 of 2009 RAM LAKHAN PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS ----------- 2/ 16/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State in both the applications. The petitioners were working as teachers. Their salary was stopped by order dated 18.12.2004. They have come to this Court with the claim for salary five years later. The impugned order stopping the salary states that their appointments and training certificates required examination. They were both appointed in the year-1980. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.4800/09 has also superannuated on 31.1.2009 while the impugned order remained in operation. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3545/09 that salary cannot be stopped only on the ground of pendency of an enquiry. Salary could only be stopped by reason of a punishment after following the service rules. Directions were for payment of salary when the enquiry report with regard to the appointment of the 2 petitioner therein was directed to be placed before the District Education Establishment Committee for an expeditious decision on the appointment. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of this application in similar terms. From the impugned orders withholding the salary it is apparent that the respondents were purporting to go into the validity of the appointment nearly 24 years later. While it is settled law that mere wrong continuance of an illegal appointment may not, per se, create a right by reason of such long continuance. The law stands equally settled that those who made such illegal appointments are equally liable as those who secured appointments. Therefore, when the respondents inquired into the validity of the appointment of the petitioners, they are bound to bring within the ambit of the enquiry those who appointed the petitioners, whether they be in service or have superannuated from service. If the respondents propose to interdict the petitioner on the legality of their appointment, the respondents are simultaneously directed by this Court to proceed against them who appointed the petitioners. If the petitioners are to go, those who appointed them 3 must also go. That is the law laid down both by this Court and the Apex Court for which reference may be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in (1996) S.C. 715 Delhi Development Authority versus Skipper Construction) and 1995(2) P.L.J.R. 573 (D.B.) (Bimal Kishore Rai versus State of Bihar & Ors.) In that view of the matter, as directed in 3545/09 the respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioners in accordance with law. The application is disposed. A copy of the order be made over to the counsel for the State on urgent basis upon payment of necessary charges. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)