ORDER
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rashmi Kumari, learned counsel to the G.P. II.
2. When this case was called out, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand be allowed to be impleaded as a party respondent No. 4. Let him do so.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the order passed by the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.G. No. 2387 of 1995(R) passed on 5.7.1996, the Director, Secondary Education was directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in relation to his recognition as a teacher taking into consideration the report submitted by the District Officer, Ranchi contained in letter dated 19.9.1992 whereby and whereunder it was shown that eight persons who were functioning as teachers included the name of the petitioner also. This Court, therefore, directed the Director to pass necessary orders and observed that if the claim of the petitioner was accepted and he was recognised as a teacher against 8th or 9th post then in that case, respondents could release the due salary to him to which he is entitled under the law.
4. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforementioned order the matter was taken up by the Director concerned and by order as contained at Annexure 7/1 dated 15.5.1997 he did give recognition to the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher in the subject ‘economies’.
5. From a perusal of the order passed earlier by the Ranchi Bench referred to above it will be evident that the High Court had gone very deep into the factual aspects and had recorded the service history of the petitioner. From a very perusal of the said order it appears that the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher for the aforementioned subject in the Jonha High School which was treated to be a Government Project High School with effect from 1.1.1982 and the petitioner even thereafter continued in the said School.
6. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that from a plain reading of not only the pleadings but also from the observations of the High Court, it may be apparent that the petitioner has been working in the school right from the date of appointment continuously and therefore, while recognizing his service as a regularly appointed teacher, his salary should have been released right from the beginning and not from the date of issuance of the order as stipulated in Annexure 7/1, i.e., the order dated 15.5.1997. To that extent and prima facie the submissions made by Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be absolutely correct and as has been agreed both by Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner as also by Mrs. Rashmi Kumari learned Junior Counsel to the G.P. II the matter can once again be remanded to the concerned Director, (newly added respondent) who is holding equivalent post in the State of Jharkhand to look into the matter afresh and pass an order strictly in terms of the order passed by the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court referred to above and after taking into consideration the observations made herein as also the observations made by the High Court indicated above. The newly added respondent shall now look into the matter and pass an order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall also communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith.
7. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Writ Application is disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.