ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.2.1997 whereby the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition being CWJC No. 2632 of 1996 (R).
2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Peon on 4.1.1982 by the Managing Committee of Sosomali High School in Rajnagar Block. In March, 1982 the said High School was taken over by the Government of Bihar and was named as Project High School. Sosomali, It was contended by the petitioner that he worked continuously from 4.1.1982 to 5.4.1996 though he did not receive any salary from the respondents. The petitioner submitted a number of application to the District Education Officer, Singhbhum for considering his case for payment of salary and for regularisation of the salary sheet. In 1996, the District Education Officer, Singhbhum issued an office order dated 5.4.1996 informing the petitioner that his appointment was not approved as at the time of his appointment ie. on 4.1.1982, he was only of 16 years 2 month 25 days when the minimum age is 18 years for any Government service. It was also informed that his claim for payment of salary for the period from 4.1.1982 to 5.4.1996 was also rejected. The said office order was impugned in the writ petition,
3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition holding that cut-off date for appointment by the Managing Committee was 1.1.1982 and liberty was given to the authority concerned to consider the cases of those candidates who were appointed prior to 1.1.1982. Considering the circular annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, learned Single Judge has held that the impugned order passed by the respondents is reasonable and within their jurisdiction.
4. It appear that in the writ petition, the respondents appeared and file counter-affidavit wherein the appointment of the petitioner on 4.1.1982 and continuously worked in the school as Peon, was not denied or disputed by the respondents. The only stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit was that as per departmental circular dated 19.11.1982, only services of those candidates was to be approved who have been appointed by the Managing Committee upto 1.1.1982. A copy of the circular was annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. From perusal of Annexure-A, it appear that cut-off date was fixed only in respect of the Leaching staff who were appointed by the Managing Committee of the school. No cut-off date was fixed for regularisation of services of non-teaching staff including Peon who were appointed by the Managing Committee upto 1.1.1982. There is no dispute that the services of the non-teaching staff who were appointed by the Managing Committee before 1.1.1982 were regularised.
5. Be that as it may, the ground of rejection in regularisation/appointment was denied by the respondents only on the ground that at the time of appointment, age of the petitioner was 16 years and few months. As stated above, assertion of the petitioner is that since. 4.1.1982. he continuously worked til! 1996 i.e. more than 14-15 years.
6. We are of the view that after taking 14-15 years, of service from the petitioner, the respondents cannot be allowed to say that his services could not be regularised and he would not be paid salary merely on the ground that on the date of appointment, he was 16 years and few months of age. This aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has not correctly interpreted the circular as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Consequently the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application whereby the petitioner was denied regularisatlon of service and payment of salary is quashed. Further, it is held that the petitioner shall not be entitle to any salary from the date he is out of service. So far the payment of salary for the period from 4.1.1982 to 5,4.1996 is concerned, the respondents namely District Education Officer. Singhbhum shall consider the claim of the petitioner and take a decision for payment of wages for the period the petitioner worked at the rate of wages he was appointed, during the relevant period. The order of this Court shall be complied by the respondents within three months.