ORDER By these writ petitions, petitioners, who were Assistant Teachers in taken over schools, have sought retiral benefits like pension etc. for themselves. 2. In my view, the question has already been decided by this Court after reviewing various judgments being C.W.J.C. No.1046 of 2006 (Smt. Asha Sharma Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) disposed of on 28.03.2011. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioners were duly appointed Assistant Teachers. Very briefly stated, there are three stages relevant in the present case. First, whenever any private school had to be established, it was required to take permission of the State Government. Permission having been granted, the school was supposed to set up the infrastructure and before it could start teaching, it had to be recognized by the State Government. It so happened that large number of schools were set up, i.e., were permitted to be established and consequently recognized by the State Government. Then, problem arose. They were unable to bear financial burden. Progressively, State started subsidizing these schools. They were made virtually deficit grant institutions. With time, rapidly the proportion of deficit grant increased which ultimately led to the State in taking a decision of taking over the schools totally. Once this was done in various phases, the teachers became Government teachers. 4. The question repeatedly arose before the Government as to from what time, Government would recognize their services. The Government all along took a conscious decision that their services would be recognized from the date of grant of permission to establish as it is consequent to that that teachers were recruited and ultimately recognition granted and schools taken over. It is in light of these facts that two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Smt. Bharti Ojha Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. and Deorlaj Sharma Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., the later being since reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 683 have held that for the purposes of retirement benefit, their services would be counted from the date they joined the schools, may be earlier to the date of take over or recognition so long as they joined after permission to establish. Then there are two recent judgments on the similar issue being Shyam Kishore Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2007(2) PLJR 239 and in the case of Gopal Jha Vs. Then there are two recent judgments on the similar issue being Shyam Kishore Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2007(2) PLJR 239 and in the case of Gopal Jha Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2009(4) PLJR 396 . Thus, we have consistently four Division Bench judgments holding that their entire service tenure would be taken into account once the school was taken over for grant of pensionary benefits. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the State refers to learned Single Judge judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Jha Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., being C.W.J.C. No.10726 of 2004 decided on 11.05.2006. 6. The first thing I would like to note that the earlier two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court were neither brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge deciding the case of Arun Jha nor the Court noticed those judgments and, thus, took a view contrary to binding precedent. 7. In my view, the judgment of this Court in Arun Jha’s case is clearly per incurium and not binding in any manner. I need not refer these matters to the Division Bench for judging the judgment delivered in the case of Arun Jha once there are four Division Bench judgments. 8. Learned counsel for the State then relies on the case of State of Bihar Vs. S.A. Hassan & Anr. since reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 295 (SC) stating that period prior to take over cannot be taken into account for pensionary benefits. The case is clearly distinguishable. There a private medical college receiving no assistance from the State Government was taken over by an Act of State accepting the services of the employees only from the date of take over. 9. In the present case, the situation is totally different. As noticed above, the taken over schools were in receipt of aid from the Government as deficit grant much prior to take over. That itself had become a reason for take over. State itself recognized their services from the time of permission to establish or thereafter as the case may be depending upon the date of substantive appointment. It is open to the State to lay down the terms and conditions under which they would recognize the services of an employee of a taken over institution. State itself recognized their services from the time of permission to establish or thereafter as the case may be depending upon the date of substantive appointment. It is open to the State to lay down the terms and conditions under which they would recognize the services of an employee of a taken over institution. Government, having taken a decision to recognize their services from the date they joined after permission to establish was granted, it is not open for this Court to take a different view of the matter. Division Bench judgments have taken note of Government decisions to come to a finding that length of service would be the service rendered as a teacher after permission to establish was granted. 10. Another important fact I may note, which is not disputed, is that taking into account services of the teachers like the petitioners from the date of their respective appointment after permission to establish, State has granted them two increments for the period the school had not even recognized much less taken over. This clearly evinced Government intention to recognize the regularity of their services under their control from the time much prior to take over or recognition. 11. Thus, the writ petitions have to be allowed. It has to be held that the period of service for the purpose of calculating retiral dues would be taken from the date of appointment after permission to establish is granted irrespective of the date of recognition or date of take over. The impugned orders which shift the date for the purposes of grant of retiral dues and, consequential, orders of recovery and/or recoveries already made are thus quashed. Position shall be restored as was before and, as noticed above, recoveries already made will have to be refunded within the period of one month by the appropriate authority from the date of production of a copy of this order before him.