ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. 1. In all these cases, the petitioners claim that they are the bonafide teaching and non-teaching employees of the Recognized Aided Minority High Schools. 2. The petitioner of WP(S) No. 794/05 claims to be working as a teacher in St. Pauls High School, Ranchi. According to her, she has not been paid the salary for the period July, 1999 to February, 2003 as the State Government has not released fund in favour of the school. 3. The petitioners of WP (S) No. 807/ 2005 claim to be working against teaching and non-teaching posts of the same school i.e. St. Pauls High School, Ranchi. They claim that they have not been paid the salary for the period from March, 1992 to February, 1997 and December, 1997 to February, 2001 though the bill has already been submitted by the Principal before the District Education Officer, Ranchi. So far as petitioners of WP (S) No. 816/2005 are concerned, they claim to be working as teaching/ non-teaching employees of St. Margarets Girls High School, Ranchi. According to them, they are entitled for the salary but the salary for the period September, 1989 to 14th December, 2000 has not been paid though the bill has already been submitted by the Principal of the school before the District Education Officer, Ranchi. 4. Sister Sosan Bara along with others have preferred WP(S) No. 835/2005. According to them they are the teaching and non-teaching employees of St. Anna Girls High School, Chainpur, District-Gumla. They have also claimed for the salary for the different period i.e. March, 1994 to January. 1997; May, 1997 to February, 1999, May, 1999 to April, 2000, February, 2001 to February 2002 and October, 2002 to February, 2004 and enhanced dearness allowance from the period from January, 2003 to May, 2004 and from July, 2004 to November, 2004. The dearness allowance for the period from March, 1979 to February, 1992 and other dues have also been claimed by them. It is stated that the bill has already been submitted by the Principal of the school before the District Education Officer, Gumla. 5. In many of the aforesaid cases, it appears that the salary has been claimed for the period as back as of the year 1989 but the delay has not been properly explained. It is stated that the bill has already been submitted by the Principal of the school before the District Education Officer, Gumla. 5. In many of the aforesaid cases, it appears that the salary has been claimed for the period as back as of the year 1989 but the delay has not been properly explained. However, as alleged, the respondents have not released the funds and for that the petitioners could not get the salary. 6. In the facts and circumstances as the matter requires determination firstly by the respondents, Instead of asking the respondents to file counter affidavit, this Court feel desirous to remand the cases of the petitioners to the concerned District Education Officer to determine the claim. The respective District Education Officer i.e. Ranchi/Gumla will decide the claim of individual petitioner and find out: (a) Whether the school(s) is/are Government Aided Minority School; (b) Whether the services of the teaching/non-teaching employees of the aforesaid schools, who claim for such benefits, have been recognized by the competent authority; and (c) Whether one or other employee is entitled for the arrears, as claimed. 7. On such decision, if any amount is found payable the authority will take up the matter with the competent authority of the State Government for releasing of the funds in favour of aforesaid schools for payment of admitted dues to such teaching/non-teaching employees so that they may get salary within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. On the other hand, if the authority disputes the claim of one or other petitioner will communicate the grounds to such petitioner. 9. All these writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations/ directions.