JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. 1. On 17.8.2017, after hearing the Counsel for the parties at length, the order was reserved. During the pendency of C.A.V. Interlocutory Applications were filed on 1.11.2017 for amendment in the prayer portion of the main writ applications challenging the order of rejection issued vide Memo No. 593 dated 22.8.2016. The pleadings were already completed, but on the request of learned Counsel for petitioners to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation and in the interest of justice, the case was released and accordingly, listed on 21.11.2017 under the heading "For Orders" by the order of the Court. After hearing both the parties I.A. No. 8437/17 in W.P. (S) No. 4258/2016 and I.A. No. 8433/2017 in W.P. (S) No. 906/2017 were allowed and direction was given to make suitable amendment in the prayer portion of the writ application. Accordingly, prayer was amended and the cases are again listed on 21.11.2017 and as the matter was already heard at length and in view of the fact that no further argument is made by the Counsels for the parties, order was reserved. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents for giving effect to merger of the cadre of Jharkhand Subordinate Education Service with the Jharkhand Education Service Class-2 and grant of all consequential benefits in terms of the policy decision taken by the Unified State of Bihar vide its notification dated 11.4.1977 and also in compliance of the various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further prayer has been made for fixation of seniority of the petitioner and payment of all consequential benefits. Further, petitioners have, inter-alia, prayed for quashing of the rejection order issued vide Memo No. 593 dated 22.8.2016. 2. It is stated that the Education Services within the Unified State of Bihar comprised of various classes which are as follows: (i) Bihar Education Services Class-I (BES Class-I) (ii) Bihar Education Services Class-II (BES Class-II) (iii) Bihar Subordinate Services (BSEB) BES Class-II posts were to be filled up by way of promotion from BSEB. The total number of posts under BES Class-II were very low and out of the total BSEB posts only 2% of the entire teaching staff could be promoted to the BES Class-II post. The total strength of BSEB cadre was 2465 whereas that of BES Class-II was 62 only. The total number of posts under BES Class-II were very low and out of the total BSEB posts only 2% of the entire teaching staff could be promoted to the BES Class-II post. The total strength of BSEB cadre was 2465 whereas that of BES Class-II was 62 only. The cadre of BES Class-II consisted only of teachers whereas the BSEB consisted of teaching and non- teaching staff and promotion to BES Class-II was made only from teachers of the BSEB cadre. There was an issue with regard to stagnation of the cadre of BSEB to which there was agitation by the BSEB cadre people and as such in order to resolve the problem of stagnation a committee namely Sharan Singh Committee was constituted in the year 1976. Sharan Singh Committee recommended that the post of teacher should be merged and a general cadre should be created. The recommendation of the said Committee was accepted by the Unified State of Bihar and a resolution dated 11.4.1977 contained in Notification No. 3251/F was published in the Official Gazette on 27.4.1977 whereby and whereunder it was provided that the Government has approved the merger of "different posts of teachers" with the BES and as such the merger of the two cadre of BES Class-II and BSEB (Teaching Cadre) was approved. The merger was given effect from 1.1.1977. 3. It is further stated that though a decision was taken for merger of the two cadre but no final notification regarding merger of the two cadre was issued by the State of Bihar even after repeated requests and as such a writ application was tiled in the year 1998 by the Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association and Others with a prayer to implement the aforesaid resolution of merger. The said writ petition was numbered as CWJC No. 12122/1998 and was disposed of vide order dated 2.2.2000 with a direction to implement the resolution dated 11.4.1977 and issue final notification of merger. Aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petition an appeal was preferred by the Unified State of Bihar which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2000. Thereafter an SLP was also preferred by the State of Bihar which was rejected vide order dated 16.4.2001 with an observation that the resolution of merger should be given effect to. Aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petition an appeal was preferred by the Unified State of Bihar which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2000. Thereafter an SLP was also preferred by the State of Bihar which was rejected vide order dated 16.4.2001 with an observation that the resolution of merger should be given effect to. Though the aforesaid orders were passed but no consequential relief was granted to the cadre of BSEB (Teaching) and even after the orders of the Hon'ble Courts, the final notification of merger of the two cadres were not issued and consequential benefits were also not granted. In the meanwhile a writ application was also filed by one of the teachers in the 2002 which was also allowed and it was directed that the resolution of the State of Bihar may be implemented and also the orders of the Hon'ble Patna High Court as well as that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court must be implemented. Even contempt notices were issued to the authorities of State of Bihar for non-compliance of earlier orders of the Hon'ble Patna High Court as well as that of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Against that order an L.P.A. was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.3.2003. Against the same again an S.L.P. was preferred by the State of Bihar before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2006 observing therein that in spite of various litigations the resolution of the year 1977 has not been implemented, it was also mentioned therein that the Bench hearing the contempt would examine whether the resolution has been implemented or not and if net then appropriate orders shall be passed against the contemnor. Finally, a notification was issued merging the two cadres on 7.7.2006. After that, individual notifications were also issued and it was also observed therein that though names of teachers who have been allocated Jharkhand Cadre are included in the notification but final decision in regard to the same would be taken by the State of Jharkhand and a communication thereto was also made to the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner ought to be paid the revised pay scale after merger w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The pay scale of the petitioner as on 9.1.2006 would be Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/-. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Shrestha Gautam and Mr. The petitioner ought to be paid the revised pay scale after merger w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The pay scale of the petitioner as on 9.1.2006 would be Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/-. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Shrestha Gautam and Mr. Shrey Mishra strenuously urges that the issue regarding merger is now no more res-integra as in several writ petitions and in several round of litigation, the same has been decided in favour of the petitioners. However, on a writ filed by the Bihar Education Service Association challenging the aforesaid merger which was allowed and notification of merger dated 7.7.2006 was quashed. The State challenged the order of writ court by way of appeal in Division Bench and also in S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court. As the issue has already attained finality and specific direction was given, the Hon'ble Apex Court showed its displeasure on the ground of changing stand by the respondent-State of Bihar from time to time. The Apex Court further observed that the State Government did not approach the Hon'ble Apex Court for clarification and on the other hand a contrary plea was taken in a collateral proceeding which was not expected from the State Government and least from the Hon'ble High Court. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that after bifurcation of the State in the newly carved out State of Jharkhand there were only 261 teachers working in the JSEB cadre. As on 31.1.2006 only 61 were left and remaining 200 have retired without being granted their due benefits of merger. As these petitioners have been allocated the Jharkhand Cadre, the benefits as provided to the counterparts in the State of Bihar pursuant to various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been granted to them. 6. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that petitioners are entitled for merger of their cadre as has been done with regard to their counterparts in the State of Bihar. 7. 6. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that petitioners are entitled for merger of their cadre as has been done with regard to their counterparts in the State of Bihar. 7. It was further argued that it is the duty of the State authorities to implement the decision of the Finance Department as contained in resolution No. 3521/F dated 11.4.1977 wherein a decision was taken to merge the teaching cadre and as such the petitioners are also entitled for the benefits after granting the benefits of the merger with effect from 11.4.1977, Attention of the Court was drawn towards Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganization Act and it was argued that in view of that the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court is binding on the territory of the Jharkhand. 8. In order to strengthen his argument, learned Sr. Counsel relied on the provisions of Section 73(i) of the Bihar Reorganization Act wherein it has been specifically provided that the conditions of service as applicable prior to the appointed day in the case of any person, deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand under Section 72 shall not be varied except with previous approval of the Central Government and as such the petitioners who were allocated the Jharkhand Cadre are entitled to benefits accruing on account of merger as contemplated vide resolution dated 11.4.1977. 9. It was also argued that the action of the respondents is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention or the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and argues that all the petitioners are members of Subordinate Education Service and after bifurcation of the Bihar State, their services were allocated finally to the Jharkhand Cadre and they are working at different places on different posts in the State of Jharkhand. 12. Learned Counsel further argued that a three member committee under the Chairmanship of Saran Singh was constituted for resolving the issue of merger. As per the recommendation of the Saran Singh Committee, the State of Bihar had taken certain decisions which was issued vide resolution dated 11.4.1977 and notified in Gazette on 27.4.1977 with respect to the merger of some employees in certain services including the Education Department (Now School Education and Literacy Department). As per the recommendation of the Saran Singh Committee, the State of Bihar had taken certain decisions which was issued vide resolution dated 11.4.1977 and notified in Gazette on 27.4.1977 with respect to the merger of some employees in certain services including the Education Department (Now School Education and Literacy Department). As per the Saran Singh Committee's recommendation some posts were identified and marked for merger with Bihar Education Service. However, it was not recommended to merge the services of all the teachers, who were members of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service, into Bihar Education Service. Saran Singh Committee was concerned to those employees who were working in State Service whereas the petitioners are Secondary School Teachers and Members of the Subordinate Education Service, which are different from the State Education Service Class-II. Process of appointment/recruitment and educational qualification are entirely different. Service Rules of State Education Service-members are also different from the Subordinate Education Service. 13. It has been argued that notification dated 11.4.1977 is not at all related to the non-gazetted cadre of the teachers of Government High Schools. The word "teachers" mentioned in item No. 7 of Schedule-I of the said notification referred to those isolated posts of teachers who had been part of umbrella service namely Bihar Education Service, but who did not have any proper cadre and had no opportunities of promotion available to them. It is further stated that Government decision to accept the recommendation of the committee has been mentioned at Serial No. 7 of Schedule-I and was confined only to 59 posts in the miscellaneous cadre only and it is not concerned with Bihar Education Service. 14. It has been further argued that the notification issued on 11.4.1977 by the State of Bihar in view of the order passed in SLP (C) No. 26675-26676/2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has been specifically mentioned in notification No. 1738 to 1754 dated 9.10.2006 sent to the Human Resources Development Department (Now School Education and Literacy Department) Jharkhand mentioning in column-7 of each of the aforementioned notification that for the persons whose services has been finally allocated in the Jharkhand State, further action, if any, shall be taken by the State of Jharkhand. 15. It was argued that after bifurcation of Bihar State, Jharkhand State has come into existence on 15.11.2000. 15. It was argued that after bifurcation of Bihar State, Jharkhand State has come into existence on 15.11.2000. As per Section 73 of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 any decision with regard to the employees who has been allocated Jharkhand Cadre, shall be taken by the State of Jharkhand. 16. It was also argued that a writ petition W.P. (S) No. 7300/2006 was filed by similarly situated persons before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court which has been disposed of on 25.2.2016 with a direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioners therein. As per the order/direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by passing a speaking order whereby claim of the writ petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 7300/06 has been rejected. 17. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration as it has not been done in proper perspective. It is an admitted fact that the issue was set up at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court and a direction was given to the respondent-State of Bihar to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the order passed by the writ court. It was clearly stated that the resolution has to be implemented in totality in the way as has been directed by the writ court. Though it has been implemented by the State of Bihar, the same has been rejected by the State of Jharkhand on non est ground. The authorities have given a different interpretation by sitting over the orders of the Hon'ble Patna High Court and that of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such they are directed to implement the resolution dated 11.4.1977 in its totality by reconsidering the orders passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court as affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The order of rejection dated 22.8.2016 is not in accordance with law and as such not acceptable to this Court. The order of rejection dated 22.8.2016 is not in accordance with law and as such not acceptable to this Court. There was no scope for promotion in the State of Bihar and specifically the scope of promotion has been provided in Jharkhand Education Service Rules, 2015 and Jharkhand Subordinate Service Rules, 2014 but the fact remains that the petitioners were part and parcel of the same service as existing in the State of Bihar and the State of Bihar has already implemented the resolution dated 11.4.1977 related to Bihar Education Service and only because the services of the present petitioner has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand their rights cannot be taken away. The orders of Hon'ble Patna High Court as affirmed by the Division Bench as well by the State authorities cannot be turned down. 18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid Rules, Guidelines, Judicial pronouncement and legal proposition, I hereby quash and set aside the order of rejection issued vide Memo No. 593 dated 22.8.2016 and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for reconsideration of the resolution dated 11.4.1977 issued by the State of Bihar and after reconsideration if the case of the petitioners is found similar to that of the State of Bihar, consequential benefits in accordance with law be extended to the present writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 19. The writ petition stands disposed of. 20. All pending I.As. also stand disposed of.