Order : Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction upon the respondent-State to grant regular pay-scale from the date they were initially appointed and pay arrears of salary to the petitioners since 01.01.1982. 2. Heard. 3. Referring to order passed by this Court in “Tarkeshwar Prasad Sahu and ors. Vs. The state of Jharkhand” [W.P.(S) No. 3122 of 2005], the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also entitled for similar relief which has been granted to other similarly situated persons. 4. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, the learned State counsel, referring to various paragraphs in the counter-affidavit, submits that the petitioners who were appointed after 01.01.1982 cannot be paid salary from a date prior to date of their initial appointment. It is submitted that pursuant to decision taken by the erstwhile State of Bihar whereunder, a cutoff date, that is, 01.04.1986 was fixed, the State of Jharkhand has also adopted the same decision and all eligible teachers who are entitled for payment of their salary or arrears of salary are being paid the same. 5. A perusal of the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner no.1 was appointed on 11.06.1984, petitioner no. 2 on 16.01.1985, petitioner no. 3 on 16.01.1982 and petitioner no. 4 on 02.05.1984. It is pertinent to note that petitioner no. 3 was appointed as Clerk and not as a Teacher. And, prayer in the writ petition is for a direction for payment to all teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. Neither name of other employees has been disclosed nor their service details have been given in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that several writ petitions were filed and finally the issue was concluded by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.” reported in 2000 (1) P.L.J.R. 287 . The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the State of Bihar was affirmed, however, certain directions were issued therein. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed on honorarium of Rs. 10/- per month till regular teacher was appointed. Other petitioners were also appointed on similar conditions. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the State of Bihar was affirmed, however, certain directions were issued therein. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed on honorarium of Rs. 10/- per month till regular teacher was appointed. Other petitioners were also appointed on similar conditions. In pursuance of the policy decision taken by the State of Bihar as contained in letter dated 19.07.1986, the teachers who were appointed in the Project Schools during 1981-82 were granted new pay-scale w.e.f 01.04.1986. The State of Jharkhand has also issued letter dated 29.12.2004 for payment of salary in the new scale w.e.f 01.04.1986. The learned State counsel submits that all eligible persons were paid their salary in the new scale w.e.f 01.04.1986, if they were appointed prior to 1986. The petitioners who all were appointed after 01.01.1982 cannot claim arrears of salary from that date. 6. The instant writ petition is wholly based on order passed by this Court in “Tarkeshwar Prasad Sahu” case. It is apparent from the said order that the subsequent events which took place particularly appointment of a Three-Men Committee which scrutinised the appointments made in the Project Schools as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been taken note of in the said decision. Reliance on decision in “Tarkeshwar Prasad Sahu” case by the petitioners is, thus, misplaced. The petitioners have not averred that their appointment was scrutinised by the Three-Men Committee and they were held validly appointed. It also appears that on 20.09.2016, liberty was granted to the petitioners to produce the report of Three-Men Committee, however, the petitioners, though have filed rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the State, have failed to produce any material to substantiate their claim besides, failing to produce the Report. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petitioners cannot be granted the relief, as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.