ORDER 1.The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, appellant No. 2 appointed both the respondents 1 and 2 as peons on class IV posts in Hazaribagh Collectoriate and appointment letters, Annexures 1 and 2 dated 19.10.1994 were issued. Both of them joined there, but were not paid salary on the scale mentioned in their appointment letters and were still being treated as daily wagers. It is relevant to state" that Annexures 1 and 2 were never cancelled. 2. On the representation of the respondent No. 1 for payment of monthly salary, the Deputy Commissioner directed payment of wages for 26 days, only treating both of them as daily wagers. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed C.W.J.C. No. 3072 of 1999(R) for enforcement of their appointment aforesaid. Learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ application by impugned order dated 8.6.2001 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, to pay the salary to both the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with their appointment letters, including the arrears, failing which the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh shall not draw his salary and other allowances till further orders of this Court. 4. The State of Jharkhand and others have challenged the aforesaid order dated 8.6.2001, passed by learned Single Judge in this appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 9.8.2001, Pending hearing of the appeal, interim orders were also passed to maintain status-quo that if the respondents 1 and 2 were working on any post, they would continue to work and be paid wages in accordance with rules and regulations. Further, the direction of the learned Single Judge that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh shall not draw his salary and allowances was kept in abeyance. . 6. Both the respondents 1 and 2 after service of appeal notice appeared and filed vakalatnama on 15.2.2002 through M/s. Nilesh Kumar, Sameer Saurabh and Saurav Arun, Advocates, but nobody present on their behalf. 7. Mr. Government Advocate submitted that appointments of respondents 1 and 2 being in contravention of the Government Circular dated 3.12.1980 were illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, were not given effect to. The power of such appointment was vested in the District Establishment Committee and not in the hands of the Deputy Commissioner alone. The respondents were also not eligible for appointment on class IV posts as Peon. 8. The power of such appointment was vested in the District Establishment Committee and not in the hands of the Deputy Commissioner alone. The respondents were also not eligible for appointment on class IV posts as Peon. 8. After going through the pleadings of the parties in the writ application and the documents brought on record, we are of the view that in case it was found that the appointments contained in Annexures 1 and 2 were illegal and without jurisdiction, there was no hurdle in the way of the competent authority to cancel them in accordance with law, but it was not done. 9. From the endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner, Annexure 4 that the respondent No. 1 herein was entitled to be paid wages for 26 days in the month of July, 1999, it appears that she was working in the Collectorate. There is no specific denial that respondents 1 and 2 were not working. 10. We, therefore, without going into the details about eligibility of the respondents 1 and 2 for their regular appointment on class IV posts in Hazaribagh Collectorate and the legality of their appointment including the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner alone for malting such appointment, remit the matter to the concerned authority -to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such reasoned orders are passed, respondents 1 and 2 will be paid their wages in accordance with interim order passed in this appeal on 9.8.2001 in accordance with rules and regulations, if the respondents 1 and 2 are actually working there. In our view, there is no reason to stop payment of salary and allowances of the Deputy Commissioner at this stage. Hence, part of the impugned order dated 8.6.2001 relating to stoppage of salary of the Deputy Commissioner on non- payment of wages due to the respondents 1 and 2 is set aside and the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. 11. The appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.