JUDGMENT : Since the issue involved in all writ petitions are similar and identical, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioners have challenged the part of the Resolution No. 1145 dated 18.07.2019, in particular Clause 7 (Kha)(vi) thereof, issued by the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, whereby, it has been decided while extending the benefit of Grade-I to untrained teachers from the date of their respective appointments that no monetary benefit shall be extended to those untrained teachers who are either retired or died. The petitioners have prayed for quashment of the said resolution and thereupon extending the scale of Grade-I from the date of their initial appointments. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Elementary School Teachers in the year 1981-1983 on different dates and have retired prior to the issuance of the impugned resolution dated 18.07.2019. It is the case of the petitioners that they were granted the benefit of Grade-I from the date of completion of their teachers’ training, rather, they are claiming such benefit from the date of their respective initial joining. It is specific case of the petitioners that though similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of Grade-I from the date of their initial appointments, but their cases have been denied by the respondents while coming out with the impugned resolution dated 18.7.2019 to the effect that those untrained teachers, who either retired or died, are not entitled to Grade-I from the date of their initial appointments. Challenging the part of the said resolution dated 18.7.2019, the petitioners are compelled to knock the door of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned clause of resolution dated 18.7.2019 is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is contrary to what has been decided by this Court, which has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The issue as to whether the teachers are entitled to Grade-I or subsequent Grades fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Arun Sinha & Ors. Vs. The issue as to whether the teachers are entitled to Grade-I or subsequent Grades fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Arun Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 492 (HC), whereby it has been held that the petitioners’ case should be considered for fixing their seniority from the date of their appointment and this judgment has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Leaned counsel further submits that again similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Dhanesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and other analogous cases, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 1799 wherein this Court had clearly observed and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of promotion i.e. financial upgradation by way of Grade-I from the date of initial appointment. Learned counsel submits that in view of the ratios laid down by this Court, affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have come out with resolution for granting Grade-I to the untrained teachers from the date of their initial appointments, but at the same time, the impugned Clause 7 (Kha)(vi) has been inserted denying the benefits to those untrained teachers, who either retired or died, like the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the State cannot discriminate amongst the working teachers vis-a-vis retired/ deceased teachers. Law is well settled that there cannot be a class amongst the class. The teachers who have approached this Court have worked to the utter satisfaction of the respondents right from 1981-1983 till the date of their superannuation. During their service period, no complaint whatsoever was ever raised against them. Learned counsel further submits that if a policy decision has been taken by the State, the same has to be in consonance with the settled principles of law. Therefore, the insertion of that very clause is unconstitutional and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of Grade-I from the date of their initial appointments. 6. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of Grade-I from the date of their initial appointments. 6. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the benefit for grant of Grade-I from the date of their initial appointment has not been extended to the petitioners due to the reason that the State has taken a policy decision not to extend the benefit of Grade-I from the date of their initial appointment to those who either retried or died. Since it is a policy decision of the Government, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the same because they are the employees of the State and the policy decision of the State is binding on the employees. Learned counsel further submit that even the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not normally interfere in the policy decision of the State. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that there is nothing illegality in the policy decision of the Government because the same has been issued after taking into consideration the very aspects of the matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Admittedly, the petitioners after rendering long services have superannuated. In the entire service period, never any finger was raised against them. It is not a case that the persons who have been granted the benefits of Grade-I from the date of initial appointment are having the different requisite qualification. The petitioners are at par with those who are still continuing in service. Even after having the same requisite qualification as that of working teachers, there is no occasion to debar them from the benefits what have been given to their counterparts working teachers. (ii) Many times, this Court has considered that there cannot be a class within a class. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 held in para-53, which reads thus:- “53. (ii) Many times, this Court has considered that there cannot be a class within a class. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 held in para-53, which reads thus:- “53. The Court held that the Central Government cannot pick out a date from a hat and that is what it seems to have done in saying that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso. In case before us, the eligibility criteria for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme have been picked out from where it is difficult to gather and no rationale is discernible nor one was attempted at the hearing. The ratio of the decision would squarely apply to the facts of his case.” (iii) The issue as to whether the untrained teachers are entitled for Grade-I and Grade-IV from the date of their initial appointment or from the date of passing of training examination fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Arun Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, (supra) whereby it has been held that the petitioners’ case should be considered for fixing their seniority from the date of their appointment and they should also be considered for giving benefit of Grade-IV after completion of 8/12 years of service, treating them entitled from the date of their initial appointment. This judgment has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos. 5520-5522 of 2023. (iv) Again similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Dhanesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and other analogous cases wherein this Court had clary observed and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of promotion i.e. financial upgradation by way of Grade-I, treating them from the date of initial appointment. (v) Law is well settled and now the issue is no more res integra that seniority will be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of completion of training and while considering promotion to Grade-I and to subsequent Grades, the same ratio apply. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for promotion to Grade-I scale and further to subsequent Grades as applicable to individual petitioners with all consequential benefits. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for promotion to Grade-I scale and further to subsequent Grades as applicable to individual petitioners with all consequential benefits. (vi) While dealing with similar cases, the issue involved for consideration of the employees of the State regarding fixation of pensionery benefits from the cut-off date is attracted. This Court had occasion to deal with those cases and merely because the cut-off date was fixed, the employees were deprived from the pensionery benefits. The said clause / cut-off regarding pensionery benefits was quashed by this Court and the State has come with the fresh notification that henceforth, all are entitled for pensionery benefits. The same theory is involved in the instant cases. This Court hopes that, once again, good sense will prevail to the State and similar result will come expunging the impugned clause from the resolution in question. (vii) The argument advanced by learned counsel for the State that since it is a policy decision of the Government, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere is not accepted to this Court. A policy decision, which is arbitrary, illegal and not inconsonance with the ratio laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is certainly interfered by this Court and the Court has every power to interfere therein. Since, from very perusal of the impugned clause of the resolution dated 18.7.2019, it appears that it is violative of the constitutional right of an employee, the impugned clause is fit to be quashed and set aside. (viii) In totality, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are also entitled for similar benefits to what have been extended to those working teachers who are covered by the said resolution dated 18.7.2019. 8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned Clause 7 (Kha)(vi) of Resolution No.1145 dated 18.7.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are entitled to Grade-I from the date of their initial appointments and further Grades as applicable in the individual cases. The benefits thereof be extended to the retired or deceased teachers like the petitioners by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are entitled to Grade-I from the date of their initial appointments and further Grades as applicable in the individual cases. The benefits thereof be extended to the retired or deceased teachers like the petitioners by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also expected from the respondents that they shall come with fresh resolution after expunging / modifying the impugned clause from the resolution dated 18.7.2019, so as to justice be ensured to all concerned, like the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all writ petitions stand allowed.