JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are retired teacher of minority Primary/Middle School, details of the individual are being shown in the chart given below: S. No. Name of Teacher Date of appointment Date of Retirement 1. Belarmin Bara 19.06.1982 30.06.2012 2. Binod Kerketta 01.04.1966 31.07.2015 3. Thomus Kujur 14.02.1969 31.12.2004 4. Jerome Ekka 22.11.1984 31.03.2010 5. Cyprian Kullu 03.08.1984 31.07.2013 6. Emrencia Dungdung 01.06.1989 31.01.2015 7. Sunil Minz 20.07.1979 31.01.2012 8. Balpius Tete 27.07.1982 31.01.2013 9. Habil Minz 15.07.1983 31.08.2011 10. Agnesh Minz 12.09.1987 31.12.2014 11. Grace Mecksima Ekka 05.03.1986 31.05.2015 12. Mariyana Khakha 26.04.1978 31.12.2012 13. Mangrita Bilung 27.04.1985 28.02.2010 14. Juleyana Kullu 08.02.1989 30.09.2014 15. Eleizved Toppo 12.06.1978 30.11.2009 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the schools in question are Aided Minority Schools and all expenses towards payment of salary and retirement benefits of the school employees is funded by the State Government from the public exchequer. The petitioners are also getting pension on the basis of the pension payment order issued by the office of the Accountant General. 4. In the present writ application, the grievance of the petitioners is in relation to non-payment of leave encashment amount on the earned leave outstanding against them. They have also stated that other post retiral dues have already been paid and that salary and post retirement benefit have been paid out of grant-in-aid provided by the State Government. 5. Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the claim of the petitioners was resisted earlier by the respondent-State Government, but the issue has now been settled in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 and analogous cases dated 3rd January, 2014 which has also been reported in 2014 (1) JBCJ 465 and now upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 20606-20607/2014. According to the petitioners, the writ petition may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered as aforesaid by the learned Division Bench and affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by directing the respondents to pay the earned leave encashment amount to the petitioners. 6. According to the petitioners, the writ petition may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered as aforesaid by the learned Division Bench and affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by directing the respondents to pay the earned leave encashment amount to the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State does not dispute that the aforesaid issue relating to admissibility of the earned leave encashment amount to the teachers of Non-Government/Aided Minority School has now been decided by the judgment rendered in the case of Mariyam Tirkey (Supra) and affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in such circumstances, the writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondent nos. 2 to take a decision in the matter of grant of leave encashment amount to the petitioners after due scrutiny of their relevant service records and in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Mariyam Tirkey (Supra) within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the fresh representation on behalf of the petitioners. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.