ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant litigation has a long and chequered history. Petitioner admittedly was appointed on 1st March, 1971 in Primary School, namely, Bal Vidyalaya Middle School, Giridih on the post of Peon. The said school was taken over by the State Government in exercise of powers under Bihar Non-government Primary School (Taking Over of Management) Act of 1976. 3. Undisputedly, by operation of the Act such schools were taken over with effect from 1st January, 1971. Petitioner was in the scale of pay of Rs. 49.50 per month and approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 536 of 1978 (R) along with 6 others writ petitioners from which he withdrew. Other six petitioners pursued their matters relating to the scale of pay of Rs. 155-190/-and succeeded as is also recorded in the judgment rendered in CWJC no. 505 of 1980 (R) by learned Single Bench of Patna High Court dated 5th February, 1986 (Annexure-3) to the writ petition. Petitioner pursued his representation before the Director (Primary Education) after withdrawing himself from the earlier writ petition and got rejection order dated 24th July, 1980 which was assailed in the writ petition being CWJC no. 505 of 1980 (R). Learned Single Judge on the instant occasion after recording the relevant material facts and submission of the rival parties allowed liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director (Primary School) Bihar, Patna for fresh consideration of his representation without being influenced by the impugned order of rejection. That representation has again been rejected by order dated 21st May, 1987 (Annexure-4) passed by the Director (Primary Education), Bihar on the grounds that petitioner cannot claim parity with other six teachers, who were already in employment prior to 1.1.1971 i.e., date of taking over of the school in question. Petitioner having been appointed on 1st March, 1971 cannot claim the benefit of enhanced pay. This order got challenged before State Administrative Tribunal, Bihar at Patna which dismissed the application holding that no case is made out by the petitioner. On being challenged, learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1837 of 1988 (R) vide judgment dated 3rd March, 1989 quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for giving afresh judgment after notice to the parties and decide the matter giving priority. On being challenged, learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1837 of 1988 (R) vide judgment dated 3rd March, 1989 quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for giving afresh judgment after notice to the parties and decide the matter giving priority. Thereafter, it is reported, as per the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner also that that State Administrative Tribunal, Patna, became non-functional. 4. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court once again in the present writ application preferred in 2004, seeking the same relief and the order of rejection at Annexure-4 is sought to be quashed. 5. Heavy reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of Education Department (Annexure-1) dated 4th June, 1973, whereunder the pay scale of teaching and non-teaching employees of such taken over schools were enhanced with effect from 1st January, 1971. The scale of pay of Peon was enhanced Rs. 75-105 to Rs. 155-190/-. Petitioner has sought this enhanced scale on the strength of the decision stating that once he became an employee of the school already taken over by the State Government with effect from 1st April, 1971 itself, there is no reason to draw distinction in the matter of grant of the same scale between those, who were already in rolls of the schools prior to 1.1.1971 or thereafter like the present petitioner. 6. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also accepted the appointment of the petitioner on 1st March, 1973 on the post of Peon in the school in question. They have however distinguished the case of the petitioner on the basis of same Annexure-1 as being inapplicable to him on the grounds that he was appointed after 1.1.1971 and is not similarly situated with other such six petitioners of CWJC no. 536 of 1978 (R). It is also evident that the respondents have granted the benefit of scale of Rs. 155-190/- to other six persons who were petitioners in the writ petition of 1978. 7. From reading of Annexure-1 denial of the benefit of enhanced scale to the petitioner of Rs. 155-190 only on the ground that he came to be appointed after taking over of the school with effect from 1.1.1971 is not made out. 155-190/- to other six persons who were petitioners in the writ petition of 1978. 7. From reading of Annexure-1 denial of the benefit of enhanced scale to the petitioner of Rs. 155-190 only on the ground that he came to be appointed after taking over of the school with effect from 1.1.1971 is not made out. The decision at Annexure-1 largely refers to the method of computation of revised salary of teaching employees though enhancement of scale of pay has been effected in both the categories teaching as well as non-teaching. Drawing analogy from the discussion made in the matter of pay fixation of teaching employees on the enhanced pay scale, it can be seen that that circular in question (Annexure-1) clearly stipulates that computation of revised scale of such teachers would be made on the basis of scale being drawn on 1.1.1971. For the new teachers the benefits of pay revision would be as per their dates of appointment. If that analogy is drawn in case of non-teaching employees like petitioner holding Class-IV Post appropriate scale of pay on the date of his appointment should have been made admissible as per the said decision itself. The appropriate scale implemented with effect from 1st January, 1971 was revised to Rs. 155-190/- which admittedly has not been granted to the petitioner till 1982. Reasonings contained in the impugned order at Annexure-4 are therefore contrary to the policy decision of the department at Annexure-1 and otherwise also does not stand to reason. If the petitioner is accepted as having been appointed on the post of Peon with effect from 1st March, 1971 any scales of pay which were admissible to Peons on that date in the taken over school would automatically stand extended to such newly appointed employee more so when the petitioner has been appointed in a regular manner and has continued thereafter till superannuation in 2013. 8. In the chronology of events narrated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been lacking in diligence in raising his claim for enhanced scale of pay at any relevant points of time starting from 1978 itself. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order of Director (Primary Education) at Annexure-4 dated 21st May, 1987. 9. For the facts and reasons discussed hereinabove, it is accordingly quashed. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order of Director (Primary Education) at Annexure-4 dated 21st May, 1987. 9. For the facts and reasons discussed hereinabove, it is accordingly quashed. The matter being old, respondents are directed to compute the salary of the petitioner in the prescribed scale of pay Rs. 155-190/- from the initial date of his appointment i.e., 1st March, 1971 and pay the arrears thereof within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.