JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.: 1. Heard Mr. Ranesh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned A.C. to S.C. II for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.05.2008, whereby the salary of the petitioner has been stopped w.e.f. March 2010 to till date and further prayer is made to payment of salary according to 6th Pay Commission. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement for appointment of three assistant teachers, the petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher. The three persons were appointed as assistant teachers, in which the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 1. The grievances of the petitioner is that in spite of the name of the petitioner at serial no. 1 the persons whose rank was at serial nos. 2 and 3 have been providing salary and other benefits etc. and the petitioner is left out. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.05.2008 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition and submits that there is contentions in the impugned order that one Nahun Lakra is being provided the pay scale of the Head Master and on that post the petitioner has been appointed as such two persons cannot be provided the pay scale of the same post. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court at paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit dated 16.05.2019 filed by the District Superintendent of Education, Gumla submits that in that paragraph it is stated that the predecessors of the petitioner i.e. Nahum Lakra has been provided pay scale of head master in compliance of order dated 01.11.2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1583 of 2014 despite the fact that there is no sanctioned post in the said school. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit in paragraph no. 13 and reasons provided in Annexure-6 order dated 30.05.2008 has got no leg to stand. He further submits that in the service book of the petitioner, the post of the petitioner has been approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Gumla. The petitioner is suffering a lot as his salary has been stopped w.e.f. March 2010 whereas the petitioner is still continuing on that post and discharging his duty. 5. He further submits that in the service book of the petitioner, the post of the petitioner has been approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Gumla. The petitioner is suffering a lot as his salary has been stopped w.e.f. March 2010 whereas the petitioner is still continuing on that post and discharging his duty. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not working on the sanctioned post as such the pay scale of the Assistance Teacher has not been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to resignation of one Hemant Khaka and that is why and he submits that the post has not been vacant sanctioned post on which the petitioner is working. As such the petitioner was not provided to the pay scale whereas the two persons whose name at serial nos. 2 and 3 they have been appointed on the sanctioned post. 6. Be that as it may, the stand taken in the impugned order dated 30.05.2008 is not sustained in view of the statement made in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit dated 15.05.2019. Moreover, the post of the petitioner has been approved by the District Superintendent of Education. The petitioner is still working on that post and he is not being paid salary w.e.f. march 2010. In view of the stand taken in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the impugned order dated 30.05.2008 cannot survive as such the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 who will take decision in the light of the observations made herein above within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Since the petitioner is still working on the post and he is not being paid salary w.e.f March 2010 it is desirable that respondent no. 2 will pass a reasoned order in this regard so that the petitioner may be paid salary for the period he has worked. 8. In view of the observation and directions made above, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.