ORDER This writ application was filed by the Convener of Patna Zila Minority High (Secondary) School Teachers Sangh representing teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools of the district of Patna. Initially, prayer of the petitioner in the writ application was for a direction to the respondents to grant the following reliefs as are given to the staff of nationalized secondary schools of the State :– (i) for payment of arrears of salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff due since April, 2005 and for payment of current salary on month to month basis; (ii) for payment of full salary on monthly basis from treasury like nationalized high schools; (iii) for grant of selection grade and time bound promotion from due date; (iv) for payment of teaching allowance, residence allowance, interim relief, bonus, uniform allowance, traveling allowance, group insurance, washing allowance, contingency etc.; (v) for grant of leave encashment like employees of nationalized high schools; (vi) for increase in age of retirement from 58 to 60 like employees of nationalized high schools; (vii) for grant of 5th Pay Revision with effect from 1.1.1996 and monetary benefits thereof from 1.4.1997 like employees of nationalized high schools; (viii) for grant of selection grade second time bound promotion and all other facilities like employees of nationalized high schools; (ix) for grant of 50% merged Dearness Allowance with salary and pay salary like employees of nationalized high schools. 2. Matter was heard on many dates since its filing in 2006. A number of pleadings were filed by the parties. Orders recorded in the case show that on many counts respondents acceded to the prayer of the petitioner and benefits under many heads were allowed also. Finally, through reply to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the case on 19.12.2012, petitioner put on record that the claim of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools of the District was now confined to the following five items:– (i) to provide leave encashment after retirement; (ii) arrears of fifth pay scale from 1.4.1997 to March, 2003; (iii) arrears of sixth pay from 1.4.2007 to 2.9.2010; (iv) Interim Relief and Teaching Allowance with effect from 1.1.1996; and (v) Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) benefits for non-teaching staff with effect from 1999. This was recorded in the order dated 1.5.2013 and learned counsel for the respondents was requested to seek specific instructions from the concerned respondents in respect of the said five claims. On the subsequent date, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, informed the Court that, in the earlier supplementary counter affidavit filed on 16.11.2010, respondents had already denied admissibility of the said five claims to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools of the District and their said denial, contained in paragraph 14 thereof, holds good for consideration by this Court. Accordingly, matter was heard on merits and the orders were reserved. 3. Since the issue was now confined to admissibility of claims under the said five heads, before proceeding further, it is useful to reproduce the stand of the respondents on the said five claims of the petitioner, as recorded in paragraph 14 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3:– “14. That from perusal of Statement made in foregoing paragraphs the following facts emerge:– A. Payment of month to month salary to the Teaching & Non-Teaching employees have been ensured vide resolution no.560 dated 08.07.2009. B. The Govt. provides Grants-in-aid for payment of salary of Teaching and Non-Teaching employees of recognized, non-government minority high School. Their payment of salary is being made through respective District Education Officer, who draws amount from Treasury. C. The facility of Time Bound Promotion stands withdrawn on implementation of recommendation of 5th pay revision committee and hence petitioners are not entitled for time bound promotion. D. After implementation of 5th pay revision the facility of Teaching Allowance, Regional Allowance, Interim Relief and Bonus has been withdrawn w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the same is not admissible even to Teaching and Non-Teaching employees of nationalized secondary schools. E. The payment of leave encashment after retirement of employees of Minority Schools is not admissible. This view has also been affirmed in L.P.A. no.627/2002 (State of Bihar Vs. Babu Lal Mishra) and other analogous cases dated 28.01.2003. F. So far as enhancement of age of retirement of employees of Minority schools are concerned, it is stated that vide resolution no.765 dated 31.8.2007 the age of retirement of Non Teaching Employees have been enhanced from 58-60 years. Similarly the age of retirement of teaching employees have been made effective from 05.09.1993 in the light of resolution no.458 dated 18.07.1994. Similarly the age of retirement of teaching employees have been made effective from 05.09.1993 in the light of resolution no.458 dated 18.07.1994. G. The benefit of 4th revision has been made applicable to the employees of Minority Schools have been made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and financial benefit w.e.f. 01.03.1989 vide memo no.893 dated 08.11.1990. H. That the benefit of 5th pay revision has been made applicable to the employees of Minority Schools w.e.f. 01.04.2003 vide Memo No.937 dated 20.05.2004. So far as the payment of arrears of difference of salary w.e.f. 01.04.97 to 31.03.2003 pursuant to 5th pay revision committee?s recommendation is concerned it is stated that the Cabinet Committee on financial policy & financial Co-ordination took a decision in its proceeding dated 09.12.2003 to grant revised scale to the teaching and non teaching staff of Minority Institutions like Govt. Employees w.e.f. 01.01.96 and the financial benefit of revised scale with effect from 01.04.03. It was further decided to take separate decision for payment of arrears after completing the following formalities :– (i) The Deptt. Of Secondary Education was required to ascertain the sanctioned strength of all such school being sanctioned Grants-in-aid and which has been duly recognized by State Govt. (ii) The Department of Secondary Education was required to enquire as to whether the appointment of employees were made after following the prescribed procedures for appointment. (iii) While sanctioning the amount of Grants-in-aid Annual Budget of all such schools should be examined and Grants-in-aid is to be paid to the extent of difference of amount of expected expenditure and expected income.” 4. But, these objections of the respondents to the said claims cannot be adjudged de-hors the Government circulars, rules, regulations etc., issued from time to time in the matter, and as put on record by either of the parties, as the said objections of the respondents must get support from them and cannot be considered in abstract. However, before that, this Court would like to notice one order of this Court dated 28.10.2010 passed in the case of Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna Vs. State of Bihar [reported in 2011(4) PLJR 931 ]. However, before that, this Court would like to notice one order of this Court dated 28.10.2010 passed in the case of Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna Vs. State of Bihar [reported in 2011(4) PLJR 931 ]. In that case, petitioner Association, through its President, had prayed for grant of benefits of 5th Pay revision and 6th Pay Revision to the teachers of the minority aided primary schools at par with and from the dates the same had been granted to other aided primary schools. This Court noticed the submissions of the parties, some government resolutions and, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana [ AIR 1988 SC 1663 ] and one earlier judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5336 of 1996, allowed the writ application and held that there was no justification and rationale in treating the teachers of aided minority schools differently for grant of benefits of pay revisions. Accordingly, it was directed that the benefits of 5th Pay Revision and 6th Pay Revision must be granted to the teachers of minority aided schools also with the respective dates the same has been allowed to the teachers of other aided schools. 5. Now coming to the Government letters etc., this Court finds that the first document in chronology is a resolution of the Government contained in Education Department Memo No.179 dated 22.12.1981. This document is available on record as Annexure-1 with the writ application; as Annexure-12 with the affidavit of the petitioner filed in reply to the counter affidavit; as Annexure-B with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2; as Annexure-A with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and as Annexure-21 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Annexure-B with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 appeared to be a photo copy of the original resolution. Hence, this Court has taken this copy of the resolution for consideration. Subject matter of this Resolution shows that it is in respect of grant of salary, allowances and other financial benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority secondary schools at par with the teaching and non-teaching staff of nationalized secondary schools. Hence, this Court has taken this copy of the resolution for consideration. Subject matter of this Resolution shows that it is in respect of grant of salary, allowances and other financial benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority secondary schools at par with the teaching and non-teaching staff of nationalized secondary schools. It has been noticed in this Resolution that non-government secondary schools were taken over with effect from 2.10.1980, and financial benefits were allowed to the teachers of such schools through Resolution No.2270 dated 30.10.1980. It has been noticed that before nationalization, the pay scale, allowances and other financial benefits of teaching and non-teaching staff of non-government secondary schools and minority secondary schools were equal. However, as a consequence of nationalization of general schools with effect from 2.10.1980, anomaly/disparity had cropped up between the teachers of two types of schools. Hence, the matter was under consideration with the Government. On consideration of all the aspects of the matter, the Government had therefore taken a decision that the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority secondary schools should also be granted the benefits of pay scale, dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance and interim relief like teaching and non-teaching staff of nationalized secondary schools. Government had further taken a decision that the pay scale, as made admissible to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the nationalized secondary schools through the said Resolution No.2270 dated 30.10.1980, should be allowed to teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority secondary schools also. Besides, like nationalized secondary schools, teachers of these minority schools should also be allowed dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance and interim relief, in terms of Government Resolution No.5205 dated 24.5.1980. So far as grant of selection grade was concerned, Government decided to treat each minority secondary school as independent unit and, on the basis of strength of teaching and non-teaching staff, benefit of selection grade scale was to be allowed with effect from 2.10.1980. Selection grade posts were to be sanctioned by the Director, Secondary Education and the managing committee of the concerned school was to grant promotional benefits of selection grade. Revised scale was to be granted to the concerned teaching and non-teaching staff with effect from 2.10.1980 itself after fixation of pay scale by the District Education Officer. Selection grade posts were to be sanctioned by the Director, Secondary Education and the managing committee of the concerned school was to grant promotional benefits of selection grade. Revised scale was to be granted to the concerned teaching and non-teaching staff with effect from 2.10.1980 itself after fixation of pay scale by the District Education Officer. Pay was to be fixed after grant of promotion in the selection grade. 6. Thus, it is clear from this Resolution of the Government that, for financial benefits, teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority secondary schools were to be treated at par with the teaching and non-teaching staff of general secondary schools of the State, which were nationalized with effect from 2.10.1980. This Resolution nowhere indicated that in any manner the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority secondary schools were to be treated differently from teaching and non-teaching staff of the nationalized secondary schools. This Resolution clearly covers the benefits of dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance and interim relief, to be granted to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority secondary schools at par with the teaching and non-teaching staff of other nationalized secondary schools and from the same date it became admissible to them. 7. Next document in chronology is Memo No.8889 dated 24.12.1986, copy of which is Annexure-9 with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit. By this Memo decision of the Government to increase admissible earned leave from 180 days to 240 days was notified and it was mentioned that all employees of the Government would be entitled for encashment of upto 240 days of earned leave. Letter No.7744 dated 23.10.2007 is also part of this Annexure, from which it appears that, through letter no.1829 dated 7.4.2005, Finance Department had increased the limit of admissible earned leave to 300 days. By this letter, it was clarified that the admissible dearness allowance as on the date of superannuation was to be added for calculation of unutilized earned leave encashment, but city compensatory allowance, house rent allowance etc. were not to be taken into account. It was also clarified that regressive ( leku ) personal pay was to be included in the admissible amount but the dearness allowance was to be calculated on the basis of basic pay. 8. were not to be taken into account. It was also clarified that regressive ( leku ) personal pay was to be included in the admissible amount but the dearness allowance was to be calculated on the basis of basic pay. 8. Next document in chronology, which is relevant in context of the claims of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools, is a letter of the Education Department No.645 dated 31.7.1987, which is Annexure-25 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Subject matter of this letter shows that it deals with the increase in earned leave of principals/headmasters/teachers/non-teaching staff of government/nationalized secondary schools and recognized minority secondary schools. This letter mentions that the State Government had decided that, with reduction of annual leave from 71 days to 60 days, like the teaching and non-teaching staff of primary and middle schools, admissible earned leave would be increased from 3 days to 14 days, which was to be calculated from the year 1987. From this letter it appears that, for the purposes of earned leave admissibility, the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as principals and headmasters of recognized minority secondary schools were being treated at par with those of government and nationalized secondary schools. 9. Next document in chronology is a letter of the Joint Secretary of Cabinet Secretariat dated 21.11.1989, annexed as Annexure-4 with the writ application, addressed to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department, informing him about the decision taken by the Cabinet on 21.11.1989, i.e. on the same day, under item No.2 of Any Other Matters ( vU;kU; ). The decision extracted shows that the demand of the Bihar Secondary Minority Teachers Association was considered by the Cabinet and it was decided that the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools be paid on the principles laid down by the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1338 of 1987®. However, in respect of payment of arrears, decision was to be taken later on. It was also decided by the Cabinet that payment of salary of last five months should be released immediately and monthly salary should be paid on regular basis. However, in respect of payment of arrears, decision was to be taken later on. It was also decided by the Cabinet that payment of salary of last five months should be released immediately and monthly salary should be paid on regular basis. It was also decided that, except for acts constituting criminal offences and disciplinary actions, other legal and disciplinary action against the employee were to be withdrawn and their period of absence on account of strike was to be adjusted by making arrangements for working of the employees during the holidays. In respect of Central Pay Scale, it was also decided that whatever decision had been taken in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff of nationalized secondary schools, had to be applicable in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools also. Accordingly action was directed to be taken. 10. Next in chronology is a Resolution of the Human Resources Development Department contained in Memo No.237 dated 20.2.1990, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure-2 with the writ application; as Annexure- C with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and as Annexure-22 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Subject of this resolution was also grant of same pay, allowances and other monetary benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized non-government minority primary/middle/ secondary schools, recognized ( izLohÑr ) sanskrit schools and madarsas, like government teachers and non-teaching employees. Resolution No.179 dated 22.12.1981 and other resolutions were taken into consideration in this Resolution. In the background of the demand of the teaching and non-teaching staff of such institutions, it was noticed that there was some disparity in dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance etc. Hence, it was mentioned that Government had taken a decision that the teaching and non-teaching staff of said institutions, besides pay, shall also be granted all such benefits which were available to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the government schools and which were to be made available to them in future also. This order was made effective from 1.1.1990. 11. Another resolution, namely, Resolution No.893 dated 8.11.1990, issued from the Human Resources Development Department, is available on record as Annexure-D with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. This Resolution is also apparently in continuation with Resolution Nos. 179 dated 22.12.1981 and 237 dated 20.2.1990. This order was made effective from 1.1.1990. 11. Another resolution, namely, Resolution No.893 dated 8.11.1990, issued from the Human Resources Development Department, is available on record as Annexure-D with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. This Resolution is also apparently in continuation with Resolution Nos. 179 dated 22.12.1981 and 237 dated 20.2.1990. Noticing earlier decisions of the Government to grant all financial benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority secondary schools, at par with those of nationalized secondary schools, Government decision was notified that the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said recognized minority secondary schools should be granted benefits with effect from 1.1.1986, in the manner as indicated in the Resolution, including the benefits of dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance and actual payment for the period 1.1.1986 to 28.2.1989 was also to be made. It was mentioned that to that extent Resolution no.237 dated 20.2.1990 should be treated as modified. 12. Next in chronology is a letter of the Director, Secondary Education contained in Memo No.311 dated 6.5.1991 addressed to all the District Education Officers, copy of which is available on record as Annexure-24 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. This letter informed that the Education Department through Resolution No.626 dated 1.9.1982 had taken a decision to grant benefit of pay and allowances, as per 4th Pay Revision Committee Report notified through Resolution No.10770 dated 30.12.1981 and 2372 dated 26.2.1982 by the Finance Department, and it was applicable to the minority schools also. It was mentioned that in spite of this clear decision, the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools were not getting the benefits as per paragraphs 10 and 11 of Resolution No.10770 dated 30.12.1981. Hence, in the letter direction was issued that, as per decision of the Education Department contained in Resolution No.626 dated 1.9.1982, action should be taken to grant benefits of selection grade and time bound promotion to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools also in terms of the said paragraphs 10 and 11 of Finance Department Resolution No.10770 dated 30.12.1981. For grant of selection grade, approval was to be granted by the Director, Secondary Education. For grant of selection grade, approval was to be granted by the Director, Secondary Education. Letter contained further direction for fixation of pay in selection grade with effect from 1.4.1981 for the purposes of grant of revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 in terms of Schedule III of Finance Department Resolution Nos. 626 dated 1.9.1982 and 6021 dated 18.12.1989. 13. Next Resolution available on record is of the Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department contained in Memo no.937 dated 20.5.2004, which is annexed as Annexure-C with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4. This resolution mentions that, after bifurcation, only 72 non-government minority secondary schools had remained in this State. It talks of grant of benefits of revision of pay scale to the teaching and non-teaching staff of these schools also with effect from 1.1.1996 as per procedure prescribed in Finance Department Resolution No.660 dated 8.2.1999, but it talks of grant of actual monetary benefits of the same to them with effect from 1.4.2003. It may be mentioned here that similar provision in resolutions, providing benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority primary schools from different dates has already been held by this Court in the case of Bihar Minority/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna (supra) as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and have been quashed. At the time of final hearing of this case also, learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that in view of the said order of this Court, teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority secondary schools are also legally entitled for grant of the benefits of 5th Pay Revision and 6th Pay Revision from the dates the benefits of the same have been granted to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the government/nationalized secondary schools. Thus, in very clear terms, learned counsel for the respondents had conceded, at the time of final hearing of the case, that relief no.2 and 3, as noticed above, are fit to be granted to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools. 14. Thus, in very clear terms, learned counsel for the respondents had conceded, at the time of final hearing of the case, that relief no.2 and 3, as noticed above, are fit to be granted to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools. 14. Next in chronology is a resolution of the Human Resources Development Department, contained in Memo no.765 dated 31.8.2007, copies of which are available on record as Annexure- D with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2; as Annexure-C with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and as Annexure-B with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. This resolution talks of increase in retirement age of non-teaching employees of non-government recognized minority secondary schools also from 58 to 60. However, as per the stand of learned counsel for the petitioner, this issue did not survive in this matter for further consideration. 15. Another document to be noticed is a letter of the Deputy Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department contained in Memo No.923 dated 8.10.2009 addressed to the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, annexed as Annexure-11 with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit; as Annexure-16 with I.A. No.5065 of 2010; as Annexure-G with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and as Annexure-27 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. This letter refers to Resolution No.179 dated 22.12.1981, clearly laying down in paragraph 3 that all the benefits granted to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the nationalized secondary schools were to be granted to the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools also. Hence, it contained a direction to the District Education Officer to act in accordance with the Finance Department Resolution No.532 dated 28.1.2009, and, in view of clear provisions in the government resolution, he was instructed not to seek guidelines or further correspond. 16. There is another resolution contained in Memo no.524 dated 22.6.2010, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure-D with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2; again as Annexure-D with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3; as Annexure-I with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and as Annexure-F with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. This Resolution also takes notice of Resolution No.179 dated 22.12.1981 and some other resolutions providing for grant of same benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff of non-government minority secondary schools. This resolution notified decision of the Government for grant of 50% of the basic pay as dearness allowance to them also, to be merged with the pay with effect from 1.1.2005. 17. Last Resolution is of the Human Resources Development Department, which is available on record as contained in Memo No.787 dated 3.9.2010, annexed as Annexure-J with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. This Resolution takes notice of implementation of recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Committee Report through Finance Department Resolution no.630 dated 21.1.2010 in the case of government employees and teachers and notified the decision of the Government to grant replacement scale of revised pay scale to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized non-government minority secondary schools also with effect from 1.1.2006, with monetary benefits from the date of issue of the letter, as indicated in the Resolution, with certain directions in respect of action to be taken before release of the amount. It can be again mentioned that at the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had conceded that, in view of the order of this Court in the case of Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna (supra), the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision have to be allowed to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools also from the same date they became payable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of other government and nationalized secondary schools. 18. Apart from these documents, there are certain miscellaneous documents also on the record in the form of individual letters of the District Education Officers, salary bills, pay fixation charts etc. One order of Ranchi Bench of this Court, certain orders of this Court and two orders of the Apex Court have also been placed on record by the parties. 19. Order of Ranchi Bench of this Court dated 30.9.1988 in C.W.J.C. No.1338 of 1987® is Annexure- 3 with the writ application. This order is in respect of aided minority primary schools, holding that the teachers thereof were entitled for all benefits including difference of pay and arrears, grant of 3rd and 4th Pay Revision as also of leave travel concession, at par with the government teachers. This order is in respect of aided minority primary schools, holding that the teachers thereof were entitled for all benefits including difference of pay and arrears, grant of 3rd and 4th Pay Revision as also of leave travel concession, at par with the government teachers. 20. Thereafter, one order of a Bench of this Court dated 4.1.2000, passed in C.W.J.C. No.8084 of 1998, is Annexure 5 with the writ application. This writ application appears to have been filed by the present petitioner. In the order, prayers made in the writ application have been noticed by the Bench, which were almost similar to the prayers made in this present writ application. The Bench noticed Resolution no.179 dated 22.12.1981 and the subsequent Resolution dated 20.2.1990 and held that in view of these two resolutions there was no requirement for any Committee to look into the matter for implementation of these resolutions. Hence, Bench disposed of the writ application giving liberty to the individual minority schools to file representation for implementation of decisions and release of grants to the schools for payment to its employees under different heads in terms of the same. The Bench directed the Director, Secondary Education to take steps for the purpose with an observation that he would not wait for any decision by the Committee. 21. Annexure-6 appears to be an order on a contempt application filed by the petitioner alleging some non-compliance of the said order dated 4.1.2000 passed in C.W.J.C No. 8084 of 1998. With some observations the contempt application was disposed of by another Bench with liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the contempt itself, if payments still remained due. 22. Respondents, on the other hand, have brought on record a common order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 28.1.2003, passed in LPA No. 627 of 2002 with two other LPAs and one writ application, which is Annexure-B with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4. From this order, it appears that, along with the three appeals, one writ application was also disposed of which was referred to the Division Bench. Appeals were apparently preferred by the State of Bihar against orders of learned single Judge directing for payment of retiral benefits including payment of leave encashment to the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools. Appeals were apparently preferred by the State of Bihar against orders of learned single Judge directing for payment of retiral benefits including payment of leave encashment to the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools. Submissions of learned counsels were noticed by the Division Bench and it found that the State Government had not taken any decision till then with regard to the payment of leave encashment to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools and no provision under Bihar Pension Rules indicated that leave encashment was included in pension. In the circumstances, impugned orders of learned single Judge in all the three appeals were set aside and the writ applications in relation to claim of leave encashment were dismissed. 23. An order of a learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court dated 19.3.2004, passed in Civil Review No.81 of 2002 with Cont(Civil) No.933 of 2002, is Annexure-28 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the review was preferred by the State and its authorities against the order passed in the main writ matter by which respondents were directed to pay leave encashment also to the writ petitioner. Government circular was taken notice of and it was held that two circulars, referred to by the review petitioner, were not consistent and hence the expression “ vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk,¡ ” was rightly held as including leave encashment also. Review application was dismissed and in contempt matter respondents were directed to comply the order passed in the writ matter within one month. 24. Annexure- 29 with the same supplementary affidavit is an order of a Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court dated 21.2.2006, passed in LPA No. 490 of 2004, which was apparently preferred against the said order passed by the learned single Judge in the review and contempt matter together. The Division Bench noticed that the LPA preferred against the original order passed in the writ matter had already been dismissed and therefore it dismissed this appeal also preferred against the review order. 25. The Division Bench noticed that the LPA preferred against the original order passed in the writ matter had already been dismissed and therefore it dismissed this appeal also preferred against the review order. 25. Annexure-30 with the same supplementary affidavit is the order passed by the Apex Court dismissing SLP in one line against the said order of the Division Bench and another order of Apex Court, marked as Annexure-D with the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, is an order dismissing another SLP in one line apparently against the order passed in LPA by Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court preferred against the order passed in the said writ matter. 26. Now, coming back to the subsisting claims in the writ application, raised by the petitioner on behalf of the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools of the District, this Court would like to take up second and third claims, as noticed above, first, since this Court, in its order in the case of Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna (Supra), has already held that difference in date of grant of benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision cannot sustain test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, this Court has already held that the distinction tried to be made by the respondents between teaching and non-teaching staff of other aided or nationalized primary schools and the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority primary schools had no rationale behind it. Hence, this Court has already quashed said part of the Government Resolutions by which different dates were fixed for grant of monetary benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Revision to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority primary schools. Though, in paragraphs 14 (H) and 19 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 reference has been made to the concerned government decisions for grant of monetary benefits of the two Pay Revision to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority secondary schools from subsequent dates, but at the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the respondents fairly accepted that, in view of the order of this Court in the case of Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna (supra) this part of the decision of the Government cannot be defended. He also accepted that the said order of this Court in the case of Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna (supra) has already been complied with and the staff of the recognized minority primary schools of the entire State are in the process of getting arrears of difference of pay scale of the two Revisions calculated from the dates the same were allowed to the staff of other primary schools of the State. 27. Hence, in view of this stand of the parties and also following the said order of this Court, this Court has no other option than to quash that part of Government Resolution No.937 dated 20.5.2004 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4) by which, while granting revised pay scale to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized non-government minority secondary schools with effect from 1.1.1996, it has been laid down that actual monetary benefits of the same shall be granted to them with effect from 1.4.2003. The same is accordingly quashed and it is held that the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized non-government minority secondary schools of the District shall also be entitled for monetary benefits of the said Pay Revision with effect from 1.4.1997 itself, the date from which the same has been allowed to the teaching and non-teaching staff of other secondary schools. Likewise, in view of the stand of the parties and following the ratio and reasons contained in the said order of this Court, that part of the Resolution No.787 dated 3.9.2010, as contained in Annexure-J with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3, by which, while granting benefits of 6th Pay Revision to the teaching and non-teaching staff of non-government minority secondary schools, it has been held that actual monetary benefits of the same shall be allowed to them from the date of issue of the said government resolution i.e. from 3.9.2010 is also quashed and it is held that the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said minority secondary schools shall also be entitled to actual monetary benefits of 6th Pay Revision with effect from 1.4.2007 itself, the date from which the same has been made admissible to the teaching and non-teaching staff of other secondary schools in the State. 28. 28. Now coming to the first claim of the petitioner, for the benefit of leave encashment, on the lines the same is admissible to teaching and non-teaching staff of other secondary schools of the Government, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner were based on some policy decisions of the respondents, emanating from Resolution No.179 dated 22.12.1981, Memo No.2 dated 9.1.1990, letter no.645 dated 31.7.1987 (Annexures- 23 and 25 respectively, both with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner), order of this Court dated 4.1.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.8084 of 1998 (Annexure-5 with the writ application), one office order of the District Education Officer, Siwan dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure-8 with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit), Government Memo No.8889 dated 24.12.1986 and two orders of this Court, one in the case of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [ 1999(3) PLJR 949 (DB)] and another in the case of Ramdeo Dwivedi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No.16032 of 2001 decided on 18.3.2002) for the submission that in terms of the said Government Resolution all pecuniary benefits ( vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk,¡ ) available to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the secondary schools in the State were to be automatically become available to the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools also and that leave encashment partakes character of salary and hence the moment the decision was taken that teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools shall be entitled for the same salary and allowances, leave encashment also became available to them at par with the teaching and non-teaching staff of other secondary schools. 29. This Court finds that the subject part of Resolution No.179 dated 22.12.1981 does mention about salary, allowances and other financial benefits ( osru] HkÙkk ,oa vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk,a ), but in the body part of the Resolution, containing decision of the Government, the expression ^vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk,a* is missing. Body part containing the Government decision shows that, apart from pay, Government decision was specifically for grant of dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance only. The decision part, contained in the Resolution does not mention about other financial benefits ( vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk, ). Body part containing the Government decision shows that, apart from pay, Government decision was specifically for grant of dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance only. The decision part, contained in the Resolution does not mention about other financial benefits ( vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk, ). Likewise, this Court finds that the said Memo no.2 dated 9.1.1990 is only an agenda ( lays[k ) for consideration by the Government and not the final decision of the Government. It is true that it talks of grant of other benefits also to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized primary, middle and secondary minority schools and to the recognized ( izLohÑr ) Sanskrit Schools and Madarsas and automatic application of all increase of allowances in their cases in future also, at par with the government schools, but in absence of clear cut decision on this agenda by the Cabinet and its notification through a resolution, it is not possible for this Court to hold on its basis that all benefits available to the teaching and non-teaching staff of government schools of the State had become automatically admissible to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority schools also for all times to come. 30. Office Order No. 645 dated 31.7.1987, which contains decision of the Government to increase earned leave in a year from 3 days to 14 days, does mention about recognized minority secondary schools also, but it is only a letter of the Commissioner-cum-secretary of the Education Department to the Director, Secondary Education and does not clinch the issue that the benefit of earned leave shall be admissible to the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority schools for all times to come at par with the teaching and non-teaching staff of government schools also. Office order dated 16.7.2009 of the District Education Officer, Siwan, as contained in Annexure-8 with the affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner does show encashment of 251 days of earned leave to a particular person, in the light of Finance Department Resolution No.8889 dated 24.12.1986. But this office order cannot itself form a basis for a finding by this Court of such entitlement to all the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority schools. The last document of the respondents, referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, is Memo no.8889 dated 24.12.1986. But this office order cannot itself form a basis for a finding by this Court of such entitlement to all the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority schools. The last document of the respondents, referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, is Memo no.8889 dated 24.12.1986. This order does show that the earned leave entitlement of 180 days was increased to 240 days, in supercession of all earlier orders. But in this letter there is no mention that the same is applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority schools also. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on two orders of this Court, as noticed above, but this Court does not find that any specific reference is required to be made to these two orders in view of the fact that, to meet this claim of the petitioner, respondents have placed reliance on a Division Bench order dated 28.1.2003 passed in LPA No.627 of 2002, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-I with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and is available with other pleadings also of the respondents. This order is apparently of a subsequent date than the order passed by this Court in the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner and noticed above, or any resolution/letter of government or its authority relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 32. This Court finds that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case were also advanced before the Division Bench and were negatived by it in the following terms :– “Pension has been defined under the Bihar Pension Rules and Rule 27 says that pension including gratuity. No where in the Bihar Pension Rules it is defined that the leave encashment is also part of the pension. It can never be a part of the pension. It is a payment made to an employee with regard to leave which he earns while in service. Admittedly, these teachers are not in government service. The State Government has not taken any decision up till now with regard to payment of leave encashment to them. It can never be a part of the pension. It is a payment made to an employee with regard to leave which he earns while in service. Admittedly, these teachers are not in government service. The State Government has not taken any decision up till now with regard to payment of leave encashment to them. In absence of any such provision, in our view, the Court cannot issue any direction for payment of leave encashment because it is not the part of the pension as held by the impugned orders.” 33. The extract of the order of the Division Bench shows that, till the date of order, it did not find any Government decision in support of the claim for payment of leave encashment to the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority secondary schools. It may be that the said letter no.645 dated 31.7.1987 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, but to overcome the hurdle put in their said claim in the light of the said authoritative findings of the Division Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner was required to bring to the notice of this Court in this case any subsequent Government decision or communication in the form of any resolution or circular or letter to indicate that, in specific terms, leave encashment has since been made admissible to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority schools also. Some of the earlier resolutions of the Government may be containing the expression “ vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk, ”, but no resolution of the Government of a date subsequent to the date of the said order of the Division Bench (28.1.2003) has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner in this case to show that, later on also, this expression “ vU; foÙkh; lqfoèkk, ” was used by the Government in context of teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized minority schools. Hence, in absence of any such material on record, this Court is unable to allow the said claim. Therefore, claim of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to allow monetary benefits of the earned leave to the retired/retiring teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized non-government minority secondary schools of the District also, is rejected. 34. Hence, in absence of any such material on record, this Court is unable to allow the said claim. Therefore, claim of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to allow monetary benefits of the earned leave to the retired/retiring teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized non-government minority secondary schools of the District also, is rejected. 34. In response to the claim of the petitioner for grant of teaching allowance, residence allowance, interim relief and bonus to the teaching staff of the recognized non-government minority secondary schools, respondents in very categorical terms have stated in paragraph 14(D) of the counter affidavit that the said benefits have been withdrawn after implementation of 5th Pay Revision with effect from 1.1.1996 in the case of teaching and non-teaching staff of nationalized secondary schools also, meaning thereby, that since Interim Relief and teaching allowance has not remained admissible to the teaching and non-teaching staff of nationalized secondary schools with effect from 1.1.1996, the same cannot be admissible to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized non-government minority secondary schools also after that date. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to this stand, had advanced his submissions in reference to Resolution No.237 dated 20.2.1990 (Annexure-2 with the writ application), Memo No.179 dated 22.12.1981 (Annexure-21) Memo No.2 dated 9.1.1990 and an order of Ranchi Bench of this Court dated 13.9.1988 in C.W.J.C. No.1338 of 1987® (Annexure-3 with the writ application). These all documents are prior to the date 1.1.1996. Claim of the petitioner is for grant of benefits of interim relief and teaching allowance to the staff of non-government recognized minority secondary schools also with effect from 1.1.1996. Respondents have taken a stand that these benefits have been withdrawn with effect from the said date in the case of staff of government secondary schools also. Hence, in absence of any material to show that the said benefits have continued, even after 1.1.1996, to the staff of government secondary schools, this claim of the petitioner on behalf of the staff of the minority schools has no legs to stand. 36. Hence, in absence of any material to show that the said benefits have continued, even after 1.1.1996, to the staff of government secondary schools, this claim of the petitioner on behalf of the staff of the minority schools has no legs to stand. 36. The last claim put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner, through reply to the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.3, filed in Court on 19.12.2012, is in respect of grant of benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority schools with effect from 1999. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the time of final arguments in the matter, had submitted that this claim was not raised by the petitioner in this case at any point of time earlier, after filing of the writ application in 2006. In the circumstances, he submitted that this Court may not go into the merits of this claim for the present and may not give a finding in respect of its admissibility or otherwise and may only direct the respondents to consider the said claim of the staff of the minority schools also at the first instance, and only in case the same is denied, issue may arise for consideration by this Court in any subsequent proceeding. He submitted that the stand of the respondents is that they are ready to take all necessary steps to ensure parity in respect of service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized minority schools and teaching and non-teaching staff of government/nationalized schools and any claim on behalf of teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority schools in this respect shall be considered properly. 37. Hence, after considering the issues raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in detail, this writ application is partly allowed with the above findings in respect of each subsisting claim. Respondent District Education Officer, Patna is directed to initiate an exercise for grant of monetary benefits of difference of salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of all minority secondary schools of the District on account of grant of 5th and 6th Pay Revision to them with effect from the dates the same have been granted to the teaching and non-teaching staff of other government/nationalized secondary schools of the District. He shall make necessary calculations, shall determine financial involvement and shall write to the Government for release of necessary funds positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. State Government, in response, shall examine the calculation and shall place necessary funds at the control of the District Education Officer, Patna positively within one month thereafter. On receipt of the fund, the District Education Officer shall see to it that the arrears of all teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority secondary schools of Patna district is disbursed positively within two months from the date of receipt of allotment from the Government. 38. So far as the claim of the petitioner for the benefits of earned leave is concerned, the same is dismissed in the light of the said authoritative findings of the Division Bench (order dated 28.1.2003 in LPA No.627 of 2002). 39. So far as the claim of Interim relief and teaching allowance with effect from 1.1.1996 is concerned, in absence of any material to show that these benefits have continued to the staff of the government/nationalized secondary schools also, the same is held as not maintainable. 40. So far as the benefits of A.C.Ps. are concerned, respondents are directed to examine the matter and come to a definite finding in clear terms with regard to admissibility, or otherwise, of the same to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized non-government minority secondary schools of the District also, at par with that of the government/nationalized secondary schools of the District. Matter shall be examined and final decision shall be taken and notified by the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.