JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioners were appointed as teachers in the school run by the respondent No. 4 at village Warola (Taluka: Majalgaon, District: Beed). The school was recognized as Ashram School and 100% grants were being paid for the said school by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. However, as per the letter dated 24th June 1986, the recognition of the school was withdrawn. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 958/1986 was filed in this Court by the respondent No. 4 against the State of Maharashtra and others. In the said writ petition, rule was granted and the order of withdrawal of recognition was stayed. So, the school continued to run with the teachers, the present petitioners. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Nagarkar, holding for Shri Talekar, Counsel for petitioners, has argued that the Writ Petition No. 958/1986 was finally disposed of on 12th December, 1987. The respondents were directed to appoint an Administrator for the said school and accordingly Administrator was appointed and the school continued to run under the Administrator from 21-12-1987 to 21-2-1992. Thereafter, the school was handed over to another institute and it is now being run by the other institute. 3. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for petitioners that during the period when the Administrator was appointed, the petitioners continued to be teachers in the school and they were paid salaries. However, they were not paid salaries of the period from May 1986 to 21-12-1987. The different period for which the salaries were not paid of the petitioners are given separately by the learned Counsel for petitioners and it is the prayer of the petitioners that they be paid arrears of salary. 4. None of the respondents have filed return and, therefore, the facts which are mentioned in the petition are not challenged by the respondents. So, the fact remains that the petitioners were appointed as teachers and they were working as teachers in the Ashram School run by the respondent No. 4 during the relevant period and they were not paid salaries though the school was getting 100% grants. The State was primarily responsible to see that the salaries of the teachers were paid. 5. Smt. S.B. Gosavi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has contended that the petitioners were not trained teachers and they could not have been appointed and, therefore, their salaries were not paid. The State was primarily responsible to see that the salaries of the teachers were paid. 5. Smt. S.B. Gosavi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has contended that the petitioners were not trained teachers and they could not have been appointed and, therefore, their salaries were not paid. To substantiate this contention, no affidavit in reply is filed by the State. Furthermore, it appears that even after appointment of Administrator, these eight teachers were continued in the school and their salaries were paid. 6. Hence, we hold that the petitioners are entitled to receive their salaries for the period as mentioned below:--- Sr. Name of the petitioner Period of salary to be paid S/Shri 1. Jeevan s/o. Bhanudas 16-06-1986 to Panchal 20-12-1987 2. Vishwanath 01-05-1986 to Pandharinath Kekan 20-12-1987 3. Dnyanoba Sidramji 16-06-1986 to Nirde 20-12-1987 4. Damodar Sakharam 01-05-1986 to Dhole 14-06-1987 5. Baburao Deorao Dhole 16-06-1986 to 20-12-1987 6. Namdeo Ramrao Rathod 16-06-1986 to 14-06-1987 7. Kondiram Gowardhan 01-05-1986 to Rathod 20-12-1987 8. Devidas Fakira Chavan 01-05-1986 to 20-12-1987 The respondent- State is directed to pay salaries and allowances of these teachers, within a period of six months from this date. The State may recover salaries of these teachers, it is found proper, from the respondent No. 4. 7. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----