Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s P.K. Shahi, AG(in both); S.S. Prasad, S.C.-8, Anil Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-8 (in 287); Apurva Kumar(in 404)
For the Respondents: M/s Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. (in 287); Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Raj Rashmi Sinha(in 404)

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appeals were filed against judgments in favor of the respondents, who had been appointed under a scheme that required proof of continuous work for three years prior to the scheme's cessation. The respondents' claims regarding this criterion were found to be false (!) (!) .

2. The courts emphasized that the right to salary arises from a valid appointment, and if the appointment is not valid, the entitlement to salary is also questionable. The state should have verified its own records regarding payments and service continuity (!) .

3. The inquiry established that the respondents did not actually work for the claimed three-year period, as evidenced by the payment records, which did not show payments for such a duration (!) .

4. The initial judgments had set aside the termination orders, citing lack of prior opportunity for a domestic inquiry, and had directed the payment of salary during the period between termination and reinstatement, pending inquiry (!) (!) .

5. The appellate court found that the direction to pay salary during the period of termination was not justified, and such a direction was set aside. The court clarified that there is no obligation on the state to make such payments (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court acknowledged that the state had initiated departmental proceedings against the respondents, which confirmed that the respondents had not worked the claimed three years, and that the salary paid during their service period could be recovered (!) .

7. The court also noted that the state had resolved to regularize certain employees under specific conditions, including working for three years prior to scheme abolition, which was a basis for their appointment (!) (!) .

8. The court highlighted that the principle of natural justice was not violated, as the outcome would likely have been the same even if full procedural fairness had been observed, given the evidence of false claims (!) (!) .

9. The appeals were allowed to the extent that the direction for salary payment during the period of suspension was revoked, and the judgments were modified accordingly. The court also assured that the state would not recover any salaries paid to the respondents during their service period (!) (!) .

10. An undertaking was given by the Advocate General that the state would not order recovery of the salaries paid to the respondents, aligning with the legal principles of fairness and lawfulness (!) .

11. The legal proceedings reaffirmed that the entitlement to salary is dependent on a valid appointment and that false information furnished during the appointment process nullifies the claim for salary and benefits (!) (!) .

12. The court disposed of all interlocutory applications and appeals, modifying the previous judgments to reflect the above points (!) (!) .

Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?