JUDGMENT : D.P. Choudhury, J. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, assails the order of rejection dated 31.10.2012 vide Annexure-14 passed by the District Education Officer, Khordha, opposite party no.3 for not releasing his arrear salary for the period from October, 2002 to March, 2009. 2. The factual matrix leading to the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Dhalapathar Kalapathar Girls’ High School, Dhalapathar on 27.04.1988 as 4th Peon after due process of selection and he joined his duties in the said post on 02.05.1988. After the school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-Order, 1994, the District Education Officer, Khordha, opposite party no.3, vide his Office Order No. 11582 dated 01.11.1995, sanctioned the grant-in-aid and disbursed the same in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School in question including three posts of Peon by ignoring the case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No.5108 of 1996 and as per the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition on 15.07.1996, the appointment of the petitioner as 4th Peon has been approved by the opposite party no.3 vide Office Order No. 13138 dated 28.08.1996 (Annexure-2) with a stipulation that the petitioner will get salary out of Government grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to receive his monthly salary till March, 1999. 3. Since the grant-in-aid from May, 1999 was held up without any rhyme or reason, on the representation of the petitioner, the arrear salary of the petitioner from May, 1999 to September, 2002 was released in his favour. Again, the arrear salary of the petitioner from October, 2002 was held up without any basis. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 30.05.2003, he made a representation to the District Inspector of School, Khurda Circle through the Headmistress of the School for disbursement of his arrear salary as well as current salary. At this stage, the petitioner came to know that the State has challenged the order dated 15.07.1996 passed by this Court in OJC No. 5108 of 1996 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, opposite party no.3 has asked the Headmistress of the school to wait till the decision is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. At this stage, the petitioner came to know that the State has challenged the order dated 15.07.1996 passed by this Court in OJC No. 5108 of 1996 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, opposite party no.3 has asked the Headmistress of the school to wait till the decision is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. A bunch of Civil Appeals leading case of which is Civil Appeal No.6844 of 2003 relating to appointment of 4th Peon were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.08.2003 directing the management of the concerned institute to move their authorities for approval of the promotional appointment of a Class-IV employee as Daftary and simultaneously it can also recommend for appointment to the Class-IV post. On the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, opposite party no.1 issued instruction to all the Inspector of Schools to issue further instruction to the Managing Committee of the Non-Government Aided High Schools where 4th Peon has been appointed to resolve the issue. The opposite party no.4 submitted the proposal from the date of inception of 4th Peon along with detailed data of Class-IV employees of the School justifying the post of the petitioner. 5. While the matter stood thus, the State Government issued notification vide Office Order No.9087 dated 07.05.2008 allowing the management of the concerned schools to give promotion to one of the existing Class-IV employees to the post of Daftary and at the same time, to adjust the 4th Peon in the consequential vacancy of Daftary. Upon receipt of such letter, the opposite party no.4 made resolution by adjusting the present petitioner as 3rd Peon since the 1st Peon was promoted to the post of Daftary and upon receipt of such Resolution, opposite party no.3 accepted the resolution and passed an order on 31.03.2009 adjusting the petitioner against the 3rd post of Peon. Upon receipt of such letter, the opposite party no.4 made resolution by adjusting the present petitioner as 3rd Peon since the 1st Peon was promoted to the post of Daftary and upon receipt of such Resolution, opposite party no.3 accepted the resolution and passed an order on 31.03.2009 adjusting the petitioner against the 3rd post of Peon. The petitioner continued to get the salary of Peon with effect from 01.04.2009, but he had not received the arrear salary as 4th Peon for the period from October, 2002 to 31.03.2009 for which he filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 8236 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.11.2010 directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation, which would be disposed of by the opposite parties, if he is entitled to receive the same, but the arrear dues of the petitioner was not released in his favour. So, he filed a contempt petition before this Court being CONTC No. 1386 of 2012, which was dropped by this Court showing the same as beyond the period of limitation. Again, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 10319 of 2013 claiming the arrear salary and as there was some defects in the said writ petition, the petitioner withdrew the same with liberty to file a better writ petition challenging the order of rejection. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. SUBMISSIONS Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been originally appointed against the post of 4th Peon, which was duly approved by the opposite party no.3 with effect from 02.05.1988 and by virtue of the order of this Court on the writs filed by the petitioner, he has been paid the arrear salary of a Peon from 02.05.1988 till September, 2002. The concept of 4th Peon has already been accepted by this Court in its order passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996, which has also been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court except directing the opposite parties to streamline the concept of 4th Peon by giving promotion to one of the Peon as Daftary and adjusting the 4th Peon against the consequent vacancy of 4th post in the institution. He further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also been pleased to direct that even if there has been refusal to the appointment of Daftary on promotion or the adjustment of the 4th Peon to the Class-IV Post, the same shall be considered what has been directed by Their Lordship. According to this, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rendered on 29.08.2003. So, he submitted that the notification of the State Government issued on 07.05.2008 to comply the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court from the date of the order of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but not from the date of order issued by the Government because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly directed to comply the order of the Court within a period of three months from the date of recommendation of the concerned institution for appointment of Daftary. 7. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that as the opposite party no.3, vide his letter dated 3.11.2003, requested the opposite party no.4 to give class-wise strength of the school from the date of inception of 4th Peon along with detailed data of Class-IV employees and the opposite party no.4 already submitted the roll strength and the detailed data of all the four peons including the petitioner on 5.11.2003, the matter should have been disposed of in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., within three months from the date of recommendation, but due to lackadaisical attitude, the opposite party no.3 after the Government notification dated 7.5.2008 issued, asked for further resolution from opposite party no.4 as to the suggestion of appointment of the petitioner in the so called vacancy of 4th Peon, which is only to deny the right of the petitioner to receive the arrear salary. On the whole, he submitted that the order of this Court passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been followed properly and the State Government has illegally issued notification on 7.5.2008 by making it applicable prospectively. On the whole, he submitted that the order of this Court passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been followed properly and the State Government has illegally issued notification on 7.5.2008 by making it applicable prospectively. Since the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been followed properly and the petitioner is entitled to arrear salary for the period from October, 2002 to March, 2009, the rejection of his prayer for such arrear salary is not only illegal but also improper and the Court may kindly intervene in the matter for payment of such arrear salary with interest as deemed fit and proper. 8. Mr. Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3, submitted that the present petitioner has suppressed the material facts because vide Government Order No. 11432/SME dated 19.04.2000 of the School and Mass Education Department, the concept of 4th Peon was never prevalent. According to Government Order, if the management has made appointment beyond the yardstick provided by the Government, the management has got the responsibility to bear the financial liability for payment of such salary to the incumbent given to them. So, according to said Government Order dated 19.04.2000, the petitioner is not entitled for drawal of salary as 4th Peon. While admitting about the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.08.2003, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that the promotional appointment of Class-IV employee as Daftary post to the consequential vacancy of Class-IV post and accordingly the State Government issued notification on 07.05.2008. 9. Mr. Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that in W.P.(C) No. 18236 of 2010, there was a direction of this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner as this Court did not enter into the merits of the case. After the said representation is filed, the opposite party no.3 disposed of the same in accordance with the Government Order dated 07.05.2008 by making approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the post of 4th Peon with effect from 31.03.2009 because such notification directs for adjustment of such post should be prospective in nature and he is only entitled to the salary after he resumes the duty in the said post. He further contended that the petitioner had suppressed the rejection of the prayer on 31.10.2012 duly communicated to the opposite party no.4 and file a fresh case in 2013 vide W.P.(C) No. 10319 of 2013. So, the writ petition is not maintainable as he suppressed the material fact. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the instant writ petition. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that after issuance of Office Order dated 07.05.2008, again another letter was sent by the Inspector of Schools to the Headmistress of the school where the petitioner was working as 4th Peon and Vide Annexure-10, the adjustment of the petitioner was made as 4th Peon with effect from 31.03.2009 on the recommendation received from the school. He submitted that since the order was passed to adjust the petitioner from 31.03.2009, he cannot be entitled to the salary of a 4th peon before that date. 11. POINT FOR DETERMINATION: The only point for determination is that whether the petitioner was working as 4th Peon from October, 2002 to March, 2009? 12. DISCUSSIONS It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in Dhalapathar Kalapathar Girls’ High School by the Managing Committee of that school and he joined in the said post on 02.05.1988. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of the order of this Court dated 15.07.1996 passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996, the petitioner’s appointment as 4th Peon has been approved vide Office Order dated 28.08.1996 (Annexure-2) giving effect from 02.05.1988, but granted grant-in-aid from 01.06.1994. 13. The petitioner claims that as his case was ignored by the Office Order dated 01.11.1995 to disburse the grant-in-aid in his favour, he had filed OJC No. 5108 of 1996 in which a direction was issued to the Inspector of Schools on 15.07.1996 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as 4th Peon and accordingly, the then Inspector of Schools has approved the appointment of the petitioner and directed to receive the salary out of the grant-in-order from 01.06.1994. 14. 14. It is further revealed from the writ petition that in the year 1999, the opposite parties stopped payment of grant-in-aid to the petitioner, but on being persuaded by the petitioner by bringing to their notice about the order passed by this Court in OJC No.5108 of 1996, they continued to disburse the arrear salary of the petitioner from 1999 to 2002. 15. It is revealed from the writ petition that the opposite party no.3 again stopped the salary from October, 2002 for which the petitioner had to make representation to the Inspector of Schools, Khurda. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that vide Annexure-5 the State Government has challenged the order passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have disposed of the same on 29.08.2003 relevant portion of which is at paragraphs-12 and 13 and the same are placed below: “12. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotional appointment of a class IV employee, as "Daftary". Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the class IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of "Daftary" on promotion. The decision on both motions shall be taken within three months from the date of submission of the recommendation in accordance with law keeping in view the operative yardsticks in force at the time of appointments were made. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above. 13. Before we part with this case we must indicate that undisputedly there were several decision of the Division Bench rendered at earlier points of time, taking a view contrary to the one taken in the impugned judgments. Learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) fairly accepted that it is so. In fact, copy of one such decision dated 3.12.1998 in O.J.C. 14004/97 was placed on record. The decisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges hearing the writ petitions. This speaks volumes about the seriousness exhibited by learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly the State Government, before the High Court.” 16. In fact, copy of one such decision dated 3.12.1998 in O.J.C. 14004/97 was placed on record. The decisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges hearing the writ petitions. This speaks volumes about the seriousness exhibited by learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly the State Government, before the High Court.” 16. After the above order is passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government sat over the matter and brought an Office Order on 07.05.2008 directing to implement the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by adjusting the 4th Peon prospectively. Thus, the Inspector of Schools on 12.5.2009 issued order vide Annexure-10 that in view of the aforesaid order of the State Government, the petitioner was adjusted with effect from 31.03.2009. 17. The opposite parties have alleged about suppression of Government Order dated 19.04.2000 which speaks that if the management made appointment beyond the yardstick provided by the Government, the management has the responsibility to bear the financial liability for payment of salaries to any such incumbent given to them and the State Government cannot bear the liability. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has already received the salary of 4th Peon after being approved by the State Government in pursuance of the direction of this Court passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996, the Office Order dated 19.04.2000 is not applicable to him and as such, there is no suppression of material fact. 18. On perusal of the Office Order dated 19.04.2000 (Annexure-A/3), it appears that where the 4th Peon has been appointed by the management without approval of the State Government or where proposal for engagement of 4th Peon is pending, to such cases Office Order could be made applicable. On further perusal of such notification, it does not appear that in the instant case, where the petitioner has already been appointed as 4th Peon and the same has been approved by the State Government vide Annexure-2 on 28.08.1996 with effect from 01.06.1994, the plea of applicability of such Office Order vide Annexure-A/3 to the case of the petitioner is redundant. On the other hand, the notification does not disclose that it applies to the cases where the 4th Peon has been engaged by the management of the school with due approval of the State Government in School and Mass Education Department. On the other hand, the notification does not disclose that it applies to the cases where the 4th Peon has been engaged by the management of the school with due approval of the State Government in School and Mass Education Department. 19. The aforesaid direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also clearly directs that the 4th Peon concept should be reconsidered in the light of the observation made by Their Lordship in Annexure-B/3 of course such order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was passed on 29.08.2003. So, in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Office Order dated 19.04.2000 requires modification after due consideration in the light of the said observation passed in 2003. 20. It is the contention of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner’s arrear salary were discontinued from October, 2002 and the opposite party-State Government brought another Office Order on 07.05.2008 directing to approve the appointment of 4th Peon where the strength of students is more than 100 and on the proposal being placed by the Managing Committee for appointment of such 4th Peon, it is made clear that such Office Order is applicable prospectively. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that by virtue of such Office Order, the matter of the petitioner was considered and accordingly, the proposal was called for from the concerned management of the school where the petitioner was working. The management, after considering the letter, again proposed to appoint the petitioner as 4th Peon as the first Peon was promoted to the post of Daftary. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Government submitted that after receipt of the proposal, the Government approved the post of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2009 and for that he was not paid the salary of a 4th Peon from October, 2002 to March, 2009. 21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that claiming such arrear salary, he has moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 8236 of 2010 whereunder on 3.11.2010, this Court has directed the petitioner to file representation for disposal by the Government but the prayer of the petitioner was not acceded to vide Annexure-C/3 except allowing the appointment of 4th Peon with effect from 31.03.2009. 22. 22. The only reason from Annexure-C/3, the order of rejection is that in view of Government Order before 19.04.2000 and Government Order dated 07.05.2008, the claim of the petitioner for arrear salary is not permissible. However, Annexure-C/3 does not disclose about the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court giving direction for creation of a post of 4th Peon. 23. From Annexure-5, it appears that the order passed by this Court in OJC No.5108 of 1996 was challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the aforesaid order on 29.08.2003. In that order, it is clearly observed that the management of the concerned institute would move the concerned authorities for approval of the promotion appointment of a Class-IV employee as “Daftary” and the 4th Peon would be adjusted against the vacancy so approved. It has been also specifically directed that the entire direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court should be implemented within three months from the date of making recommendation by the respective school to the authorities. It is revealed from the material available on record that on 06.10.2003, the State Government asked the Director of Secondary Education and all the Inspector of Schools to implement the order and accordingly the recommendation of the school of the petitioner was sent vide Annexure-7. In annexure-7, it has been specifically stated that the school has got capacity of more than 100 students always and the petitioner has been working as 4th Peon since 02.05.1988. Instead of complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within the time specified by it, the Government issued Office Order dated 07.05.2008, which is reproduced below: “GOERNMENT OF ORISSA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL & MASS EDUCATION No. 9087/SME. Dt.7.5.08 IX-SME (HC)-19/06(Pt-1) OFFICE ORDER Government of Orissa, Education and Youth Service Deptt. Issued Circular No. 28365 EYS dt.8.7.81 fixing standard staff for the non-Government Secondary Schools. So far as Peons are concerned, three Peons with following designations have been provided in the above circular: (i) Office Peon - 1 (ii) Science Attendant – 1 (iii) Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper – 1 It has been further provided that where the roll strength of the school exceeds 100, one post of Daftary is admissible. Subsequently by another circular No. 15500-SVIIEP-50/91-E, dtd. Subsequently by another circular No. 15500-SVIIEP-50/91-E, dtd. 27th March, 1992 the position was further clarified that the roll strength of 10 Class High School in 500 (five hundred) or more, one post of Daftary is admissible. As regards the post of DAftary in 3-Class, 5-Class & 7-Class High School the Circular is silent. While disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 6844/2003, State of Orissa Vrs. Rajendra Kumar Das and another and batch of 4 other C.As, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in their judgment dt. 29.8.03 have observed as follows: “If a school was entitled to have a “Daftary” certainly the appointment was to be made by promoting one of the three persons, i.e., Office Peon. Science Attendant and Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper, there being no other Class-IV post in the institution. It is for the Managing Committee of the institution to decide who is to be promoted and thereafter seek approval of the concerned authorities. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotion appointment of a Class-IV employee as “Daftary”. Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the Class-IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of “Daftary” on promotion. The decision on both motions shall be taken within three months from the date of submission of the recommendation in accordance with law keeping in view of the operative yard-sticks in force at the time of appointments were made. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above.” In accordance with the above observations and directions contained in the judgment dated 29.08.03, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the proposal of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa vis-a-vis detail information furnished by the Inspector of Schools concerned were examined and found that the Managing Committee of the concerned High Schools under respective Education Circle had appointed the 4th Peon mentioned against each High school as per list enclosed. At that point of time, the student strength of the school was above 100. As such, one post of “Daftary” in the said school as per yardstick for adjustment of 4th Peon against the consequential vacancy in accordance with principle laid down in the judgment dt. 29.8.03 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At that point of time, the student strength of the school was above 100. As such, one post of “Daftary” in the said school as per yardstick for adjustment of 4th Peon against the consequential vacancy in accordance with principle laid down in the judgment dt. 29.8.03 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. That after careful consideration, Government have been pleased to allow the Management to give promotion to one of the existing Class-IV employees to the post of Daftary, taking into consideration the merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority and to adjust the so called 4th Peon as mentioned in the list enclosed in the consequential vacancy of Class-IV post in the said school. (i) In case of the following so called 4th Peon out of the enclosed list who is over-aged at the time of appointment, age limit may be relaxed by the Managing Committee through adoption of appropriate Resolution. Sri Chandrasekhar Nayak-Khurda High School, Khurda, Khurda Circle (Sl.27) (II) In case of the following so-called 4th Peon out of the enclosed list who were found under-aged at the time of appoint, a condition may be imposed in his appointment order that the service rendered prior to attaining the age of 18 years shall not be taken account as per Clause-6(1) of Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981. Sri Basanta Kr. Giri-R.K.High School, Baharana, Balasore Circle (Sl.37) Sri Kamala Kanta Kar-Patarani High School, Tahalia, Balasore Circle (Sl.38) Sri Baidhar Patra-Bansad High School, Bansad, Bhadrak Circle (Sl.39) Sri Dhruba Charan Ghivela-Sri Jagannath High School, Kendumunda, Kalahandi Cricle (Sl.40) Sri Hrusikesh Mohanta-Laxmipat High School, Terati, Keonjhar Circle (Sl.41) (III) In case of the following so-called 4th Peons out of the list enclosed, who do not possess minimum qualification prescribed for the Peons, i.e., Class-VII may be designated specifically as Nigh Wahter-cum-Sweeper for which he needs to be a mere literate. Sri Harish Chandra Jena, A.C. Bidya Niketan, Sandado, Bhadrak Circle (Sl. No.29) Sri Kalu Ch. Nayak, Sri Lokanatheswar H.S. Badakholi, Ganjam Circle (Sl.No.30) Sri Prasanna Ku. Rout, Upendra Kumar H.S., Abdalpur, Jajpur Circle (Sl.31) Sri Chakradhar Mallick, Bapujee Uchha B.P. Karada, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.32) Sri Mangaraj Pradhan, Sri Jagannath B.M. Rahasoi, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.33) Sri Basudev Lenka, Sri Sri Hungula B.M. Mijatpur, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.34) Sri Upendra Ku. Rout, Sri Hanumanjew H.S. Sahaspur, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.35) Sri Mohan Ku. Rout, Upendra Kumar H.S., Abdalpur, Jajpur Circle (Sl.31) Sri Chakradhar Mallick, Bapujee Uchha B.P. Karada, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.32) Sri Mangaraj Pradhan, Sri Jagannath B.M. Rahasoi, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.33) Sri Basudev Lenka, Sri Sri Hungula B.M. Mijatpur, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.34) Sri Upendra Ku. Rout, Sri Hanumanjew H.S. Sahaspur, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.35) Sri Mohan Ku. Lenka, Ratnapira B.N. Thakurpatna, Jajpur Circle (Sl.No.36) (IV) In case of the following so called 4th Peon out of the enclosed list the stipulation made at Para-(i) and (III) above will be made applicable. Sri Narayan Chandra Sahoo, Andheipalli H.S. Bhadrak Circle (Sl.No.28) The adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the aforesaid so called 4th Peon so adjusted is entitled for salaries (grant-in-aid) only after he/she resumes duty in the said post. The post of Daftary in the said High School shall be abolished automatically consequent upon retirement/resignation/death etc. Of the incumbent. The Inspector of Schools concerned shall take immediate steps to issue necessary office order in this regard within a week positively from the date of receipt of this order and submit compliance to Govt. forthwith. This disposes of the claims of petitioners pursuant to the orders/judgments of the Hon’ble High Court/Hon’ble Supreme court, if any, filed by the so called 4th Peons. All concerned be intimated accordingly. This has been concurred in by Finance Deptt. In their UOR No. 13/SS-1 dtd.14.1.08. Sd/- U.P. Singh Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt. xx xx xx xx” The aforesaid Office Order issued by the State Government clearly states that the same has been issued in pursuance of the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Rajendra Kumar Das reported in (2003) 10 SCC 411 . It is clearly mentioned in the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 that in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government allowed to give promotion to one of the existing Class-IV employees to the post of Daftary and to adjust the so called 4th Peon in the list of schools including the school of the petitioner as per the pleadings of the parties. There again it is mentioned that the adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the 4th Peon adjusted would be entitled only after he resumes duty in the said post. There again it is mentioned that the adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the 4th Peon adjusted would be entitled only after he resumes duty in the said post. When there is specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that decision on both the motions should be taken within three months from the date of recommendation and in the particular case, the recommendation has already been made by the concerned school on 05.11.2003 in pursuance of the letter of the State Government, the direction under the Office Order dated 07.05.2008. Instead of complying the order within the time specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was directed that adjustment shall be prospective in nature, i.e, from the date of issuance of Office Order dated 07.05.2008 can be said to be contemptuous. Thus, the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 cannot be allowed to contravene the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to make the list so approved prospective from 07.05.2008 but the same should be made applicable retrospectively, i.e., three months from the date of recommendation as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the State Government has sat over the matter for five years instead of complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court, undoubtedly such order of the State Government affect the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as accrued under the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner has been already appointed as 4th Peon with due approval of the State Government. It is only submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department that the approval of the erstwhile Inspector of Schools to the appointment of the petitioner as 4th Peon is not operative does not hold good as the said order has been passed in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also directed for introduction of Daftary system and consequently the concept of appointment of 4th Peon in the manner as observed above. So, the petitioner is working as 4th Peon from 02.05.1988 and continuing as such. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also directed for introduction of Daftary system and consequently the concept of appointment of 4th Peon in the manner as observed above. So, the petitioner is working as 4th Peon from 02.05.1988 and continuing as such. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court by modifying the order of this Court directed for fresh recommendation and the same is also complied in the manner as stated above, there is no logic to deny his continuance in the post of 4th Peon for the period from October 2002 to March, 2009. The point is answered accordingly. 25. CONCLUSION In the writ petition, it has been prayed to allow the petitioner the arrear salary from October, 2002 to 31.03.2009. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petitioner has been performing his job as 4th Peon by virtue of the order of this Court passed in OJC No. 5108 of 1996 being duly complied by State Government vide order dated 02.05.1988. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the order of this Court by virtue of their order dated 29.08.2003 having directed to introduce the concept of 4th Peon and consequent there upon, the name of the petitioner being re-recommended, the position of the petitioner as 4th Peon remained unaffected. When the service of the petitioner is continuing by virtue of the order of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-14, mentioning no order of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, sans merit and as such liable to be quashed and the Court do so. As such, the petitioner is entitled to arrear salary for the period from October, 2002 to 31.03.2009 and the same be paid to him after due calculation within a period of three months from today failing which the same shall be paid to the petitioner with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.