JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General for the State of Bihar. 2. This writ petition has been filed by two petitioners claiming themselves to be the validly appointed teachers of Madarsa Islamia Arbia, Naeemia, Sonebarsa, Maharajganj, District-Siwan. They claim that the Petitioner No. 1 was appointed under a resolution dated 16th July, 2012, whereas the Petitioner No. 2 was appointed under a resolution dated 16.08.2012. These proposals were preceded by an advertisement in the year 2011 and after the selection process, the papers with regard to the selection of these two teachers were sent for approval to the competent authority with regard to which approval was granted, as disclosed in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition. This factum of appointment of the petitioners and their approval remains undisputed. It is, however, submitted by the learned Advocate General that these appointments having been made after the resolution dated 15th of February, 2011, they were entitled to a fixed pay which has been now indicated in the impugned memo dated 31st August, 2013 where Clause 6 categorically provides that such of these teachers who have been appointed after 15th February, 2011 shall be entitled to fixed pay only. 3. The challenge has been raised to the resolution dated 31st August, 2013 to the aforesaid extent contending that the same is arbitrary and discriminatory and there is no rationale so as to reduce the pay-scale of the petitioners that they were already enjoying pursuant to their appointment by retrospectively applying the resolution dated 31st August, 2013. 4. The background in which this challenge has been raised centres around two resolutions, one dated 15th February, 2011 and the impugned resolution dated 31st August, 2013. 5. There were 1128 Madarsas that were recognized and aided by the State Government but were privately managed. According to the resolution dated 15th February, 2011 apart from these recognized and aided private Madarsas, there were 2459 unrecognized and unaided Madarsas who were registered with the Madarsa Board. It appears that an issue was raised with regard to bringing such 2459 Madarsas on the grant-in-aid list and extend State benefit to them. According to the resolution dated 15th February, 2011 apart from these recognized and aided private Madarsas, there were 2459 unrecognized and unaided Madarsas who were registered with the Madarsa Board. It appears that an issue was raised with regard to bringing such 2459 Madarsas on the grant-in-aid list and extend State benefit to them. It is in respect of such Madarsas, that were unrecognized, that a resolution was passed on 15th of February, 2011, wherein it was provided that a departmental survey will be conducted with regard to the status of these 2459 Madarsas and thereafter the grant-in-aid shall be proportionately given to them for meeting the expenses of salary which shall be at a fixed rate. Thus, the scale of pay was a fixed rate of pay-scale that was to be provided to the teachers of such of these 2459 Madarsas, if they were otherwise found to be eligible for recognition. 6. The resolution nowhere indicates of the applicability of fixed pay-scales in respect of recognized and aided Madarsas including the 1128 Madarsas referred to therein that were already recognized prior to 15.2.2011 and its teachers who were getting regular pay-scales. The said resolution was, therefore, not made applicable in respect of teachers appointed in the recognized Madarsas that were already on the grant-in-aid list prior to 15th February, 2011. There is no dispute that the petitioners have been appointed in such Madarsas which were already recognized and were already in the grant-in-aid list where they were getting the regular pay-scale. It is correct that their appointment has been made after 15th of February, 2011, but the fact remains that these appointments are prior to the impugned resolution dated 31st August, 2013 in Madarsas that were recognized and aided prior to 15.2.2011. 7. Consequently, the petitioners belong to those class of teachers who were appointed against sanctioned posts in recognized Madarsas that were already on the grant-in-aid list prior to the resolution dated 15th February, 2011. 8. The contention of the learned Advocate General is that as per Clause 7 and Clause 8 of the resolution dated 15th February, 2011, the same was also meant to be applied in respect of all appointments in all Madarsas and Sanskrit Schools irrespective of their status of recognition and receiving grant-in-aid list prior to 15th February, 2011. 8. The contention of the learned Advocate General is that as per Clause 7 and Clause 8 of the resolution dated 15th February, 2011, the same was also meant to be applied in respect of all appointments in all Madarsas and Sanskrit Schools irrespective of their status of recognition and receiving grant-in-aid list prior to 15th February, 2011. In essence, his argument is that since the petitioners were appointed after 15.02.2011, therefore, they are also covered by the aforesaid two clauses. 9. Clauses 7 and 8 are extracted hereinunder:- ^^7- lE;d fopkjksijkUr jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd fcgkj jkT; enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk fucaf/kr 2459 enjlksa dh tkWap foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k 1090 fnukad 29-11-1980 esa fufgr 'krksZa ds vkyksd esa ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ls djk;h tk;sxhA tkWapksijkUr mi;qZDr fu/kkZfjr 'krksZa dks iwjk djus okys enjlksa dks fcgkj jkT; enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk izLohd`fr iznku dh tk;sxhA rRi'pkr~ mUgsa vuqnku ds :i esa mPp fo|ky; ,oa izkjafHkd fo|ky; ds f'k{kdksa dks orZeku esa ns; fu;r osru ds lerqY; jkf'k Hkqxrku djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA 8- jkT; ljdkj }kjk xksikyxat ftykUrxZr mpdkxkao iz[k.M ds yqfglh iapk;r esa vofLFkr enjlk vjfc;k benknqy mywe] dijiqjk dks izLohd`fr iznku djus ,oa muesa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dks mijksDr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj vuqnku dh jkf'k nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA^^ 10. A perusal of Clause 8 read with Clause 7 would leave no room for doubt that it was in respect of only those 2459 Madarsas which were unrecognized and it is in respect of the teachers appointed in such Madarsas that the Government came out with a policy to provide them with a fixed pay-scale as against the regular pay-scales that were being paid to the other teachers including the petitioners who were appointed in recognized and aided Madarsas that were getting benefits prior to 15.2.2011. 11. In our considered opinion, the resolution dated 15th of February, 2011, therefore, because of the aforesaid distinction as explained above was not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners who were already appointed and approved against sanctioned posts from the grant-in-aid that was being received by such Madarsas even prior to 15.02.2011. Clause 7 categorically applies to such Madarsas to be found eligible amongst 2459 Madarsas with which the petitioners had no concern. 12. Clause 7 categorically applies to such Madarsas to be found eligible amongst 2459 Madarsas with which the petitioners had no concern. 12. The impugned resolution dated 31st August, 2013 proceeds to impose the condition of fixed salary in respect of all the teachers who were appointed after 15.02.2011 in the recognized 1128 Madarsas and 531 Sanskrit Schools. This has been clarified in Clause 5(t) read with Clause 6 of the impugned resolution dated 31st August, 2013 that are extracted hereinunder:- ^^5 ¼t½ iqujhf{kr osrueku esa osru Hkqxrku ds fy, ljdkjh vuqnku laLd`r fo|ky;ksa@enjlksa ds Lohd`r f'k{kdksa@f'k{kdsRrj dfeZ;ksa ds inksa ij fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr mUghsa f'k{kdksa@f'k{kdsRrj dfeZ;ksa ds fy, ns; gksxk] ftlds fy, ljdkj }kjk iwoZ ls osru Hkqxrku ds fy, vuqnku nsus dh Lohd`fr nh xbZ gSA fnukad 15-02-2011 ds ckn fof/kor~ fu;qDr dfeZ;ksa dks ljdkj }kjk fu;r osru ds vk/kkj ij vuqnku fn;k tk ldsxk] blds fy, laLFkk }kjk vyx ls izLrko nsdj ljdkj dk vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼6½ jkT; ds vjktdh; izLohd`r ¼foRr lfgr½ 1119 enjlk ,oa 09 ckfydk enjlk vFkkZr~ dqy 1128 enjlk ,oa fofHkUu Lrj ds 531 laLd`r fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa@f'k{kdsRrj dfeZ;ksa dh lsokfuo`fRr ds i'pkr~ gq, fjDr in ljdkj }kjk vuqnku ds fufer fu;r osru ds in esa fnukad 15-02-2011 ls Lor% Convert ekus tk;saxs vkSj fnukad 15-02-2011 ls vFkok ckn dh lkjh fjfDr;kWa ds fo:) fu;qDr f'k{kdksa@f'k{kdsRrj dfeZ;ksa ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu;r osru dh x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij vuqnku ns; gksxkA^^ 13. The petitioners are Teachers of such Madarsas and Schools that stood recognized and aided prior to 15.02.2011. The impugned Resolution dated 31.8.2013 quoted hereinabove in Clause 6 converts the pay-scales of those Teachers who were appointed in such schools after 15.02.2011 with retrospective effect. This was therefore impermissible as the matter under consideration on 15.2.2011 was of giving a fixed pay-scale to those Madarsas who had not been recognized up to 15.02.2011, and were found eligible after inquiry in terms of the said order of the Government. The 15.02.2011 Resolution therefore did not contemplate reduction of salary of those who were getting a regular pay-scale in recognized and aided Madarsas against posts sanctioned prior to 15.02.2011 which formed a different class. The petitioners were deprived of the regular pay-scale for bringing about an equality in respect of institutions which were not subject matter of the Resolution dated 15.02.2011. The petitioners were deprived of the regular pay-scale for bringing about an equality in respect of institutions which were not subject matter of the Resolution dated 15.02.2011. The 15.02.2011 resolution does not stipulate any restriction of regular pay-scales. The State Government may have been under some compulsion to reflect equality in its actions as they agreed to give a fixed pay-scale to the Madarsas that were recognized after 15.02.2011 as those Teachers may have demanded a regular pay-scale, but the same could not have been made a ground for deprivation of the pay-scale admissible to sanctioned posts in respect of the Madarsas and Schools that stood recognized and aided prior to 15.02.2011. The said benefits could not have been withdrawn retrospectively as the petitioners even though appointed after 15.02.2011 but before 31.08.2013 were occupying posts that were recognized and aided even prior to 15.02.2011 with regular pay-scale. The posts had not been abolished nor their pay-scales had been reduced when the petitioners were appointed which was admittedly prior to 31.08.2013. The shifting and adjustment of financial burden adopted by this discriminatory process therefore is an irrational exercise and is both arbitrary and discriminatory. If the State Government chose to give a lesser pay-scale to Madarsas which were unrecognized and unaided but were recognized after 15.02.2011, the same formed a separate class and it cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of revising the benefits of the petitioners who were in their own right entitled and were already getting a regular pay-scale prior to 31.08.2013. The impugned Resolution dated 31.08.2013, therefore, cannot apply in the case of those who have been appointed prior to 31st August, 2013. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned action and Resolution to the aforesaid effect converting the pay-scale of the petitioners cannot be sustained and is, hereby, quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners. 14. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and declare that the petitioners will continue to get the same salary that they were getting prior to the impugned resolution together with all arrears on that account that shall be released forthwith within a period of three months from today.