Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in all the cases and the respective counsels of the State of Bihar.

2. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions, raised are the common issues of law while praying for identical reliefs, they were heard together and disposed of by a common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, this Court proceeded to refer to the reliefs prayed by the writ petitioners, which fell for consideration before this Court.

4. The writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions, in sum and substance, seek a direction commanding upon the respondents to pay their leave encashment, gratuity and other retiral benefits, who retired from the post of teachers from their respective recognized Madarsa’s at par with Government teachers in the light of the Constitutional mandate and various circulars issued time to time by the Government of Bihar with regard to equal treatment to the Madarsa’s Teachers.

5. Some undisputed facts noted in the batch of writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in recognized respective Madarsa’s and their services were approved by the competent authority and after serving a long unblemished career, they were superannuated on their respective dates of superannuation. It is the admitted fact that the State Government revised the pay scale of the teachers of Madarsa, which were availed by the petitioners from time to time. It is further submitted that as the recognized Government aided Madarsas were initially affiliated by the State of Bihar Madarsa Education Board and the Government sanctioned number of posts of teaching and non-teaching staff and as per the Rules and Regulations, their salaries were paid through the District Education Officer/ District Programme Officer of the respective districts.

6. Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since there was an anomaly in pay and other allowances between the Government Schools, Minority Schools/Madarsa Schools and the Sanskrit Schools, the Government took a policy decision, as contained in Memo No. 237 dated 20.02.1990 whereby the Government provided salary, dearness allowance, Medical allowance, House rent allowances, Urban allowance and other interim reliefs to the Minority Educational Institutions, including Madarsa and Sanskrit Schools at par with the Government schools. The aforesaid Memo no. 237 dated 20.02.1990 has been brought on record by way of Annexure- 2 to the writ petition.

7. Reliance have also been taken on the judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi holding that the aided minority school teachers cannot be discriminated and the benefits given to the Government schools shall also be available to the staff of Minority Schools, Sanskrit Schools and Madarsa teachers. The petitioners heavily relied upon the judgment rendered by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Minority Secondary Teachers Association vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 2897 of 2005) [: 2011 (4) BLJ 160] and Md. Rustam Ali vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 11015 of 2016), as contained in Annexures-5 and 6, and lastly the order passed by this Court in the case of Neyaz Ahmad @ Neyaj Ahmad vs. The State of Bihar and others (CWJC No. 4145 of 2019) [: 2021 (3) BLJ 306], which orders/judgments are the part of the writ petitions.

8. On the other hand, respective counsels for the State have filed their respective counter affidavits in all the writ petitions and by referring to the averments made therein vehemently submit that the entire case of the petitioners is based upon Memo No. 237 dated 20.02.1990, is wholly misconceived in view of the fact that the aforesaid Memo No. 237 dated 20.02.1990 was modified vide Memo No. 893 dated 08.11.1990 and the benefits, which have been allowed to the teaching and non-teaching staff remained confined to the Minority