JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2006 in Case No. 24 of 2006 (JET) passed by Jharkhand Educational Tribunal, Ranchi (hereinafter referred as JET) whereby and whereunder appellant was directed to pay salary to respondent No. 4 from 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994. 2. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. It appears from Annexure-1 that respondent No. 4 was appointed as temporary teacher in the School of appellant. In pursuance of the same, she joined on 04.04.1988 and regularly worked till 03.10.1994, the date on which she resigned. It further appears that appellant requested respondent No. 1 for giving approval on the appointment of respondent No. 4. It reveals from Annexure-A that the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum vide his memo No. 9612-16 dated 04.07.1994 communicated approval of the Government on the appointment of respondent No. 4. It appears that respondent No. 4 made repeated request for payment of her salary for the period 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994, but in vein. Thereafter, she filed a writ application in the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) vide C.W.J.C. No. 3734 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2009 with an observation that: “If the work has been taken by the Managing Committee of the said School from the petitioner, it is the Managing Committee before whom the petitioner may make her grievances. 3. It appears that thereafter respondent No. 4 filed L.P.A. which was also dismissed by Annexure-4. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 filed representation before the Managing Committee on 21.11.2001 for giving salary, in view of observation made by this Court. When the Managing Committee did not give any heed to her representations, she filed present application before the JET. The JET issued notice to all concerned parties and after considering the contention raised by them passed an order on 24.06.2006 directing the appellant to pay salary of the petitioner for the period 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994. Aforesaid order challenged in this appeal. 4. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the Jharkhand Educational Tribunal has dismissed the application of the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 31.03.2006 on the ground that her claim has already been rejected by this Court in the aforesaid writ application. It is further submitted that thereafter the Tribunal reviewed its earlier order dated 31.03.2006 and passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that thereafter the Tribunal reviewed its earlier order dated 31.03.2006 and passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the JET has no jurisdiction to review its own order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the claim of the respondent No. 4 is of the year 1994, therefore, as per Section 10(1)(a) of the JET Act, this application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 5. On the other hand Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the earlier order of the JET is bad on the face of record, because this Court has asked the petitioner to file representation before the Managing Committee of the School for redressal of her grievances. When this fact brought to the notice of JET, it reviewed its earlier order. It is submitted that JET has ample power to review its own order under the provisions of Section 11(3)(f) of the JET Act. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 4 filed her representation before the appellant in view of order of this Court, but the appellant is sitting over the same. Thus, there is no delay in filing of present case. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the respondent No. 4 worked in the school of appellant from 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994, therefore, she is entitled for her salary. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the order of JET. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It is apparent from Annexure-3 that while dismissing the writ application this Court has asked respondent No. 4 to file representation before the Managing Committee for redressal of her grievances. Thus, this Court has not decided the merit of the case and left it open for the Managing Committee to decide the same. Therefore, on the face of record, order dated 31.03.2006 passed by JET appears to be defective. Under the JET Act, JET has power to review its own decision as per the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, if the JET come to the conclusion that any order, passed by it, is against the fact of the case, then it has power to review the same. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Thus, if the JET come to the conclusion that any order, passed by it, is against the fact of the case, then it has power to review the same. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find no illegality in the impugned order. 7. It appears that in view of direction of this Court, the respondent No. 4 filed representation before the Managing Committee of the School in question, but the Committee is sitting over the matter. It appears from the reply filed by respondent No. 4 in this appeal that she filed representations on 30.07.2001, 19.07.2001, 21.11.2001, 03.09.2002 and 03.02.2006 and prayed for payment of her salary for the period 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994, but no decision communicated to her. Thereafter, she filed the present application before the JET. Since, the appellant, who is the Managing Committee of the School, has not given any decision and all the representations filed by the petitioner as per the direction of this Court is pending before it, then, in my view, the provision of Section 10(1)(a) has no application and present case filed before the JET is within time. Under the said circumstance, the second contention raised by Learned Counsel for the appellant has no leg to stand. 8. The appellant has not denied that respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School vide Annexure-1. It is also not denied that she joined in the School from 04.04.1988 and worked regularly in the School till 03.10.1994. It also appears from Annexure-'A' that though the appointment of respondent No. 4 approved by the Government, inspite of that appellant has not prepared salary bill and send it to District Education Superintendent. Under the said circumstance, the appellant school is liable to pay salary of respondent No. 4. In that view of the matter, I find that JET rightly directed the appellant to pay the salary of respondent No. 4 from 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994. 9. In view of discussion above, I find no merit in his appeal, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.