By the Court.—These appeals are against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.8.1998 whereby the writ petition has been allowed following the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P., (1993) 2 UPBEC 945.

2. The petitioners in the writ petitions claimed to be teachers in the Sri Amar Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Khejuri, District Ballia recognised by the State Government. The petitioners in the writ petitions claimed to have been appointed teachers of a primary section. When they have been denied salary and other benefits which was paid to the primary teachers, they filed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and has issued a mandamus to the respondents to pay salary to primary school teachers through the State as is done in the case of primary teachers of High School and Intermediate Colleges following the judgement in the W.P. No. 29290 of 1990 Ramesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others. Two writ petitions have also been disposed of in the same terms. It appears that the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2471 of 1994 was filed by the State Government against the order of learned Single Judge in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay which was dismissed by the Apex Court on 12.7.1995. It appears that the similar issue arose in the case of Vinod Sharma and others v. Director of Education (Basic) U.P. and another, 1998 (3) SCC 404, three judges Bench of the Apex Court has taken the similar view as taken in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay. However, the judgement of three judges Bench of the Apex Court was doubted by the Division Bench of the Apex Court and vide order dated 8.9.2006, the matter has been referred to the larger Bench in Special Appeal No. 3989 of 2006 (State of U.P. and other v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others). The larger Bench of the Apex Court vide order dated 2nd September, 2014 has upheld the view taken by the three judges Bench in the case of Vinod Sharma. The larger Bench has held as follows :

44. As regards the first two categories of Junior High Schools, the applicability of Section 10 of the 1978 Act does not create any difficulty. The debate which has centered round in this group of appeals is in respect of third category of the schools where Classes I to V are added after obtaining recognition to the schools which are recognized and aided for imparting education in Classes VI to VIII. Whether teachers of primary section Classes I to V in such schools are entitled to the benefit of Section 10 of the 1978 Act is the moot question. As noticed, the constitutional obligation of the state to provide for free and compulsory education of children till they complete the age of 14 years is beyond doubt now. The note appended to clause (xxvi), para 1 of the Educational Code (revised edition, 1958), inter alia, provides that Basic Schools include single schools with Classes I to VIII. In our view, if a Junior Basic School (Classes I to V) is added after obtaining necessary recognition to a recognized and aided Senior Basic School (Classes VI to VIII), then surely such Junior Basic School becomes integral part of one school, i.e., Basic School having Classes I to VIII. The expression”Junior High School” in the 1978 Act is intended to refer to the schools imparting basic education, i.e., education up to VIII class. We do not think it is appropriate to give narrow meaning to the expression “Junior High School” as contended by the learned senior counsel for the state. That Legislature used the expression Junior High School and not the Basic School as used and defined in the 1972 Act, in our view, is insignificant. The view, which we have taken, is fortified by the fact that in Section 2(j) of the 1978 Act, the expressions defined in the 1972 Act are incorporated.

45. The submission of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the State of U.P. with reference to the subject School, namely, Riyaz Junior High School (Classes VI to VIII), that the said s