IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11000 of 2008 1. RAJNISH KUMAR GARG, son of late Ram Shankar Pandey, resident of village+ P.O. Bishunpur Patti, P.S. Sahebganj, District Muzaffarpur 2. Ajay Kumar, son of late Sudarshan Ram, village + P.O. Nawada, P.S. Gobindganj, District East Champaran 3. Ganga Nand Mishra, son of late Yadukant Mishra, resident of Mohalla Agarwa, P.S. Motihari, District East Champaran at Motihari 4. Binit Kumar, son of late Shambhu Nath Pandey, resident of village + P.O. Amodei, P.S. Ramgarhwa, District East Champaran … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, through its Chairman, District Magistrate, East Champaran 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran 4. The District Education Officer, Motihari, District East Champaran 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Motihari, District East Champaran … Respondents ----------- 2. 4.5.2011 Having heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State this Court is of the opinion that the relief which has been sought in this writ application cannot be given to the petitioners in view of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & ors. vs. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar, reported in 2010(3) PLJR 294, in which the Full Bench has already held that offering appointment on the post of 2 Panchayat/ Prakhand Shikshak to a dependent of a teacher working in the Government schools was fully justified, inasmuch as no such claim could be made by the dependent to be appointed on a post with regular pay scale of teachers. In that view of the matter, when the petitioners have already been appointed on the post of Prakhand Shikshak, the basic object of compassionate appointment has already been fulfilled, inasmuch as the dependents of the deceased employee have been provided with a support by way of employment of the petitioner. An ancillary submission has also been raised by Mr. Singh that the petitioners are not being paid their salary/ wages even in capacity of Prakhand Shikshak. There is also a specific averment made by the petitioners in this regard in paragraph 22 of the writ application which reads as follows: “22. That it is stated that petitioners are regularly working as Prakhand Sikshak in their schools but they are not getting their salary till date in spite of 3 their regular demands.” Counsel for the State however is not in a position to make any submission on this aspect, inasmuch as he has not been able to file a counter affidavit within a period of almost three years from the date of filing of the writ application. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the competent authority to ensure that now when the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Prakhand Shikshak and they have also accepted such appointment by way of compassionate appointment, they must be paid their salary for the period of their working. If such arrears and current salary has not been paid till today, the petitioners must be paid such salary within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/