JUDGMENT: Heard Shri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri L.K. Lall, learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Teachers of Jharkhand Project High School and the petitioner no. 2 is the General Secretary of the Association. 3. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for issuance of an order quashing of Clause-3 of the Government Letter No. 167 dated 29.12.2004, issued by the Director, Secondary Education (Respondent No. 3) by which, the salary of the teachers of the Project High Schools selected in the financial year 1981-82, has been ordered to be re-fixed with effect from 1.4.1986, thereby arbitrarily shifting from 1.1.1982 and in purported violation of the Government letter no. 30 dated 22.01.1982 and several other letters and also in violation of the specific order of this court dated 24.8.1988 passed in CWJC No. 3979 of 1983 and also the Full Bench decision of this court passed in the case of Project Vidhyalaya Shikshak Sangh, Bihar, Patna ( 2000 (1) PLJR 287 . 4. Members of the petitioner Association were appointed as teachers of the Project Schools in between 1982-1985. Remuneration fixed for them was in accordance with the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time including the Government letter no. 30 dated 22.01.1982 and several other notifications. By the impugned order dated 29.12.2004, salary of the members of the petitioner Association has been sought to be re-fixed with effect from 1.4.1986, on the basis of the notification (Annexure-H to the counter-affidavit), thereby shifting the date from 1.1.1982 to 1.4.1986. 5. The grievance of the petitioner Association is that under the notification dated 1.4.1986 (Annexure-H), regular salary of the teachers of the Project High Schools has been fixed. The remuneration which was used to be paid to the teachers earlier by virtue of fixation made by the Government as declared through its several notifications, was only a stopgap arrangement, till the final fixation made in the regular pay scale and as such, the members of the petitioner Association are entitled to regular pay scale, from the date of their recruitment and not from the date of impugned notification. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this dispute was earlier referred by several other teachers before the High Court and after considering the same, the High Court had directed the concerned authorities of the respondents to consider the grievance of the teachers and to pass appropriate order in the light of the claim advanced by the teachers. The representation filed by the teachers was duly considered and claim of the teachers for grant of regular pay scale from the date of their initial recruitment, was conceded and allowed. The members of the petitioner Association also deserve the same benefit, but the concerned authorities of the respondents have denied the same to them and, therefore, the present writ application. Learned counsel refers in this context to a judgment passed in the earlier writ application in which a direction was issued to the concerned authorities of the respondents to consider the claim of the members of the petitioner Association for fixing their salary in the regular pay scales from the date of their initial appointment. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. Shri L.K. Lall, learned counsel for the respondent State, would also invite attention to the impugned Government notification dated 1.4.1986 (Annexure-H) and submit that by this notification, regular pay scales of teachers have been fixed, but at the same time, it has been made effective from 1.4.1986. Learned counsel explains further that it is not a case where the members of the petitioner Association were not paid any salary at all or that, the amount of salary which was paid to them, has been sought to be reduced. Learned counsel would add that in order to place the matter in proper perspective, it needs to be explained that by the earlier notification, remuneration which was payable to the teachers, was fixed and they used to receive the remuneration in accordance with the pay scale as fixed by the Government. The pay scale fixed by 1986 notification, has to be deemed to be revised pay scales and can be made effective only from the date it has been stipulated in the notification and not from any retrospective date. The pay scale fixed by 1986 notification, has to be deemed to be revised pay scales and can be made effective only from the date it has been stipulated in the notification and not from any retrospective date. Learned counsel however concedes that in the earlier orders passed in the various writ applications both by the Single Bench and also by the Division Bench of this court, the concerned authorities of the respondents were directed to reconsider the grievance of the teachers regarding their claim for regular pay scales from the date of their initial appointment. The representation of the teachers was considered by the concerned authorities of the respondent State and the claim in respect of some of the teachers, was conceded. Learned counsel would submit further that even though, the 1986 notification declares otherwise, but since reconsideration on the issue has been made by the concerned authorities in compliance with the earlier direction of this court, passed in the various writ applications, the petitioner may as well file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities which could be duly considered. 8. Considering the rival submission and the facts relating to the dispute, since admittedly, the benefit of the regular pay scales declared in 1986, has been made effective from the date of initial appointment, in case of some of the teachers albeit, pursuant to the orders of this court in the earlier writ applications, there is no reason as to why members of the petitioner Association should be discriminated. 9. Considering the above facts, petitioner may file a fresh representation raising their claim and annexing documents in support of the grounds, within ten days from the date of this order and within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, the concerned authorities of the respondents namely, the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, shall consider the same and take appropriate decision after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to submit their respective cases and in the light of the earlier decision taken on the similar claims of other teachers and effectively communicate his decision to the petitioner Association. Pending such decision, operation of the orders as contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure-15, shall remain stayed. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.