ORDER : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. In W.P.(S) No. 75 of 2017 the petitioner has made following prayers: “i) For quashing order as contained in memo No. 2122 dated 16.12.2016 whereby and whereunder, the services of the petitioner as Graduate Trained Teacher has been terminated with immediate effect in pursuance to the decision taken by the Establishment Committee dated 14.12.2016, which is absolutely illegal. ii) For a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the salary of the petitioner, which is due since the date of his appointment i.e. 4.1.2016 to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. iii) AND/OR to grant such other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2. In W.P.(S) No. 64 of 2017, the petitioner has made following prayers: “i) For quashing order as contained in memo No.2122 dated 16.12.2016 whereby and whereunder, the services of the petitioner as Graduate Trained Teacher (Arts) has been terminated with immediate effect, which is absolutely illegal. ii) For a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the salary of the petitioner, which is due since the date of his appointment i.e. 4.1.2016 to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. iii) AND/OR to grant such other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. During course of proceedings on 26.06.2019, this Court has quashed the order of termination and for the question of salary for the period the petitioners have not worked, were left open. For brevity order dated 26.06.2019 is quoted hereinbelow: “ At the very outset, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. Anil Kumar submits that the issue as to whether the Commerce Graduate can be appointed as an Arts Teacher has already been considered by the State and order to that effect has been issued enabling Commerce Graduate to be appointed as Arts Teacher, the said decision is produced by the learned counsel, which is accepted by this Court and kept on record. It is submitted that in response to the query made by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3246 of 2017 (Bhim Narayan Das Vs. It is submitted that in response to the query made by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3246 of 2017 (Bhim Narayan Das Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), which is still pending before this Court for further adjudication, the State has come out with Memo dated 28.08.2018 whereby it has been clarified that Graduation Degree obtained on the basis of Commerce syllabus can be kept under the category of Social Science under the provisions of Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012. Further, it is submitted that vide Memo No.858 dated 29.04.2019 issued by the D.S.E, Dumka, the services of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3246 of 2017 has been reinstated in view of Memo dated 28.08.2018, which shows that even the Commerce Graduates can be considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Arts stream as Commerce degree has been considered to similar degree as that of Social Science. The services of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3246 of 2017 was terminated on the ground that he was holding the Commerce Degree and was appointed as an Arts Teacher, however, the order of termination has been recalled vide Memo dated 29.04.2019. In the instant cases also, the services of the present petitioners have been terminated on the ground that they have obtained Commerce Degree but have been appointed as Arts Teacher. It would be relevant to mention here that vide Memo dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Director, Higher Education, the State was of the view that the Commerce Degree is equivalent to degree obtained in Social Science. In view of the Memos dated 28.08.2018 and 29.04.2019, the order of termination is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequence of the aforesaid observation and guidelines, the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside so far as it relates to present petitioners. So far as the question of salary for the period they have not worked owing to their termination is concerned, the same shall remain open. Put up this case after two weeks. In the meantime, the respondents may file additional counter-affidavit.” 4. Even after a lapse of six years, nothing had happened and the respondents have not taken any decision. So far as the question of salary for the period they have not worked owing to their termination is concerned, the same shall remain open. Put up this case after two weeks. In the meantime, the respondents may file additional counter-affidavit.” 4. Even after a lapse of six years, nothing had happened and the respondents have not taken any decision. The law with regard to payment of salary is now well settled, inasmuch as, if there is any latches on the part of claimant/employee, he would not be entitled for any salary but at the same time, if the concerned employee is not responsible for not doing the work and it is only the respondents due to which the employee has been prevented from doing the work; then certainly the employee would be entitled for payment. Another aspect with regard to back wages, is also now well settled that the employee will have to certify before the competent authority that within such period he has not worked anywhere. 5. Accordingly, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the respective petitioners to file a fresh representation with regard to the salary along with all judgments in their support before the respondent no.4. The moment the respondent no. 4 receives such representation; it will pass a reasoned and speaking order with regard to payment after verification of record within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The concerned respondent would be at liberty to call the petitioners to know about the fact as to whether the petitioners were working somewhere in order to come to a conclusion. 6. Accordingly, both these writ applications, stand disposed of.