S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) IN the connected writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 11462 of 2000(P) disposed of on 29th April, 2002 the Court noticed the following facts.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers against vacant posts in the year 1982 -83. Their orders of appointment having been cancelled by the State, the petitioners moved before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 99/1985, 485/ 1985 and analogous cases. The orders of cancellation of appointment of petitioners were stayed by the Patna High Court vide its order dated 21st January, 1985/5th February, 1985 and other orders. In view of interim order of stay, petitioners continued to function as Assistant Teachers without any break. Some of the petitioners, who were untrained, were also sent for training by the State between 12th May, 1991 and 5th February, 1994. Subsequently, they were, reappointed in view of Supreme Court 'sdirection on 4th April. 2000. Similarly situated persons whose services were also terminated and in whose favour the Court issued the order of stay and those who continued to function, some of them were also reappointed vide Memo No. 9619 dated 26th December, 1995 and Memo Nos. 5938 -6000 dated 15th July, 1997. In their orders of reappointment, one of the terms and conditions was shown that their pay will be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn, as per the Supreme Court 'sorder. Similar condition as mentioned in the cases of petitioners at Clause -viii of their order of reinstatement dated 4th April, 2000. They were also informed that their pay will be fixed as per order of the Supreme Court. But in spite of the same, pay of the petitioners were not fixed taking into consideration last pay drawn by them.
(3.) THE aforesaid averments made by petitioners were not disputed by the opposite parties. After disposal of the case when the respondents disposed of the claim rejected it on one of the grounds that there were no post vacant prior to order of reinstatement of petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners cannot derive the benefit of Supreme Court 'sorder.;