JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these writ petitions relate to claim of individual petitioners for grant of Grade-I Scale and seniority from the date of their initial joining as Assistant Teachers in Elementary Schools within the State. These petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Arun Sinha & others Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others passed in W.P.S. No. 638 of 2006, 2008 (2) JLJR 442 dated 4.4.2008 to support their claim stating that in individual cases petitioners have obtained the Teachers Training qualification during the course of their services. The delay in obtaining the Teachers' Training qualification was not on account of their fault. Petitioners in these writ petitions claim to have been appointed in the year 1987 or 1988 or 1994 or 1999-2000. 3. It is also not out of place to mention here that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Arun Sinha & others (supra) was upheld in appeal by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 214 of 2008, 2013 (1) JLJR 200 dated 6.11.2012. The Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 5520-5522 of 2013 preferred by the State of Jharkhand being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 8.3.2013 finding no valid and legal ground for interference. One or the other persons who claimed that their case are identical to that of Arun Sinha & others (supra) started approaching this Court for similar relief. Respondents authorities of the State were directed in individual writ petitions to examine the case of such petitioners and if they are found to be covered by the ratio rendered by this Court in the case of Arun Sinha & others(supra), similar relief be granted. 4. During the course of time while dealing with such matters, this Court considered it proper in one of the present batch of cases i.e. W.P.S. No. 2547 of 2014 (Sunil Kumar Bhagat & others Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others) to have the considered view of the respondents department on the aforesaid issue and to undertake exercise to identify such matters which are pending before this Court for similar grievance. State of Jharkhand & others) to have the considered view of the respondents department on the aforesaid issue and to undertake exercise to identify such matters which are pending before this Court for similar grievance. By the order dated 19.8.2015 passed in the case of Sunil Kumar Bhagat(supra), the respondent-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand was also asked to take a call on the necessity to issue general executive instructions / circulars to all the District authorities laying down clearcut guidelines to deal with the matters, which are covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Arun Sinha & others (Supra). The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department (renamed from the existing Department of Human Resources Development), Government of Jharkhand appeared before this Court on the next date i.e. 16.9.2015. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State made submissions that since the issue involved is no longer res-integra and modalities relating to implementation of decision rendered in the case of Arun Sinha & others (supra) are required to be worked out with concurrence and consultation with other departments as it may involve financial outlay as well, appropriate time may be granted. Accordingly, on the request of learned Advocate General, the matter was adjourned for 3 months and directed to be posted on 16.12.2015. That is how the matters are on board today. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel No.1 and other counsels are representing the State in the respective matters. Counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.S. No. 2547 of 2014 by the respondent-Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand bringing on record the policy decision taken by the State Government in that respect. Para 7 of the counter affidavit is quoted herein below :- “Para 7 : That the State Government has taken a policy decision giving seniority to the untrained teachers appointed in the years 1987, 1988, 1994 and 1999-2000 from the date of their appointment and the Government resolution in this regard has been notified vide memo no. 3027 dated 14.12.2015.” 6. The resolution bearing memo no. 3027 dated 14.12.2015.” 6. The resolution bearing memo no. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 containing the policy decision of the State on the aforesaid issue in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Arun Sinha & others (Supra) is enclosed as Annexure-A. It records the chronology of facts and the circulars issued from time to time in respect of the Teachers of the Elementary School, more specifically in relation to those who were appointed on the post of Matric Trained Teacher in such Elementary Schools. It also discusses the ratio laid down by this Court and upheld up to the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Sinha & others (Supra). It also discusses the ratio laid down by this Court and upheld up to the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Sinha & others (Supra). Para 15 contains the decision of the State Government on the aforesaid subject which is quoted hereunder :- jktdh;d`r izkFkfead fo|ky;ksa esa fu;qDr vizf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls xzsM&1 ojh;rk iznku djus ds laca/k esa eaf=ifj"kn~ dh cSBd fnukad 08-12-15 esa fuEukafdr izLrkoksa ij Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZ gS& ¼d½ jktdh;d`r izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 1987 ,oa 1988 esa jkT; ljdkj ds izko/kkuqlkj eSfVªd izf'kf{kr in ds fo:) fof/kor :i ls fu;qDr vizf'kf{kr f'k{kd ,oa laizfr >kj[k.M jkT; vUrxZr izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dk fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls xzsM&1 esa vkilh ojh;rk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;A ¼[k½ fcgkj izkjafHkd fo|ky; fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh] 1991 ¼;Fkk le;≤ ij la'kksf/kr½ vUrxZr o"kZ 1994 ,oa 1999&2000 esa eSfVªd izf'kf{kr in ds fo:) fof/kor~ :i ls fu;qDr vizf'kf{kr f'k{kd ,oa laizfr >kj[k.M jkT; vUrxZr izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dk fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls xzsM&1 vkilh ojh;rk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;A ¼x½ mi;qZDr nksuksa dksfV ds f'k{kdksa dh vkilh ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k xzsM&1 esa fu;qfDr dh mudh frfFk ds vk/kkj ij djrs gq, vxyh izksUufr jktdh;d`r izkjafHkd fo|ky; f'k{kd izksUufr fu;ekoyh] 1993 ds izko/kkukuqlkj vuqekU; gksxh] c'krsZ fd os izksUufr dh ;ksX;rk j[krs gksaA ¼?k½ mi;qZDr dksfV ds vizf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls xzsM&1 esa ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k ds QyLo:i 15-11-2000 ds iwoZ dk dksbZ cdk;k jkf'k vuqekU; ugha gksxkA ¼M-½ ;g iwoksZnkgj.k ugha gksxk ,oa blds vk/kkj ij mi;qZDr daafMdk ¼d½ ,o ¼[k½ dks NksM+dj vU; dksbZ f'k{kd ;Fkk vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij vizf'kf{kr ds :i esa fu;qDr f'k{kd vkfn xzsM&1 esa lfEefyr gksus ,oa bl vk/kkj ij ojh;rk ikus ds gdnkj ugha gksaxsA ¼p½ ekuuh; >kj[k.M mPp U;k;ky; }kjk W.P.(S) No. 638/2006 esa ikfjr vkns'k ls izHkkfor gksus okys f'k{kdksa dh lwph fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx dh vuq'kalk] f'k{kd in ij fu;qfDr ,oa vgrkZ ds lkFk&lkFk muds Hkfo"; fuf/k ys[kk la[;k (GPF) vafdr djrs gq, ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd }kjk rS;kj dh tk;sxh] ftls lacaaaf/kr mik;qDr ,oa {ks=h; f'k{kk mi&funs'kd }kjk la;qDr :i ls lR;kfir fd;k tk;sxk rFkk bls >kj[k.M ljdkj ds website ij PDF file esa j[kk tk;sxkA bl izdkj rS;kj dh xbZ lwph esa lfEefyr vizf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks gh fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls xzsM&1 ds f'k{kd ds :i esa ojh;rk dk ykHk vuqekU; gksxkA ¼N½ mi;qZDr dksfV ds vizf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dk xzsM&1 esa osrueku foRr foHkkx] >kj[k.M ljdkj ds i=kad 4588@fo-] fnukad 05-07-02 ds vuqlkj vuqekU; gksxkA ;g ladYi rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA vkns'k % vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bls >kj[k.M jkti= ds vkxkeh vad esa tu lk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh gsrq izdkf'kr djk;k tk;A 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that as per the policy decision of the State contained in the aforesaid resolution, the District Superintendent of Education of respective Districts have been directed to determine the inter-se seniority of Teachers of the Government Primary Schools for the purposes of their promotion. It is submitted that now the individual grievance raised by the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are to be addressed in terms of the said resolution and benefits arising out of Grade-I scale and seniority from the date of initial joining would be conferred upon the individual incumbents who satisfy the required conditions laid down therein after the exercise is carried out by the respective District authorities. It is submitted that any promotion from Grade-I to the higher grades thereafter would be dependent upon fulfillment of conditions prescribed in Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 as is also clear from the reading of the said resolution. Therefore, these writ petitions can be disposed of so that the concerned District authorities would carry out the exercise and examine individual cases of such persons/petitioners and grant them the benefits as per the instant policy decision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that a time frame be stipulated for carrying out the exercise so that the matter is not unnecessarily delayed. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also sought liberty to raise any grievances in relation to the instant resolution in an appropriate proceeding if aggrieved. Petitioners also have submitted that they would be entitled to promotion to higher grade which may also be considered by the concerned District authorities after carrying out the exercise for grant of benefit of Grade-I and seniority from the date of their initial joining. 9. This issue relating to seniority from the date of initial joining and grant of Grade-I scale to the Assistant Teacher in Primary school has engaged the attention of this Court in several matters. The respondent-State has in due deference to the ratio laid down in the case of Arun Sinha & others (supra) now taken a policy decision to grant the said benefit as per the terms of the said resolution quoted herein above to individual incumbents. The respondent-State has in due deference to the ratio laid down in the case of Arun Sinha & others (supra) now taken a policy decision to grant the said benefit as per the terms of the said resolution quoted herein above to individual incumbents. It would now be proper that the cases of individual petitioners who fall within the terms of the resolution dated 14.12.2015, quoted herein above, be considered by the respondents-District authorities. The District Superintendent of Education of respective districts would examine the individual cases as per the procedure laid down by placing the matter before the District Education Establishment Committee for taking an informed decision in respect of individual claims in accordance with law and the aforesaid policy decision within a reasonable time, preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. It would not be out of place to record appreciation for the efforts taken by the State counsels and the respondent-Department in coming out with the policy resolution, which may possibly reduce institution of large number of cases with similar grievances in this Court. 11. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pending I.A.s also stand closed.