Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009<br />
the respondent no. 3 as wholly innocent<br />
in the m<strong>at</strong>ter for the reason th<strong>at</strong> he,<br />
being a superior and higher <strong>of</strong>ficer, if<br />
found th<strong>at</strong> someone in his <strong>of</strong>fice is not<br />
acting properly and is causing a glaring<br />
injustice and illegality, it was incumbent<br />
upon him to apprise the St<strong>at</strong>e<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> such act <strong>of</strong> the<br />
respondent no. 5 recommending a<br />
suitable disciplinary action against him,<br />
but the respondent no. 3 also kept<br />
silence in this m<strong>at</strong>ter and it is only when<br />
he was personally summoned, took steps<br />
which he could have taken earlier for<br />
paying the salary to the petitioner. To<br />
this extent, the respondent no. 3 is also<br />
guilty and is to be held responsible.<br />
In view <strong>of</strong> the above discussion, this<br />
<strong>Court</strong> is s<strong>at</strong>isfied th<strong>at</strong> here is a case<br />
where the conduct <strong>of</strong> the respondents<br />
makes them liable for an exemplary cost<br />
which I quantify to Rs. two lacs. This<br />
would also be compens<strong>at</strong>ory to the<br />
petitioner. The liability is distributed to<br />
the extent <strong>of</strong> Rs. 1.5 lacs against<br />
respondent no. 5 and fifty thousands<br />
against respondent no. 3. The above cost<br />
shall be paid by them within six months<br />
failing which it would be open to the<br />
Registrar General <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Court</strong> to take<br />
steps to realize the same amount as<br />
arrears <strong>of</strong> land revenue. After realizing<br />
the amount <strong>of</strong> cost, the same may be<br />
released in favour <strong>of</strong> the petitioner.<br />
Case law discussed:<br />
AIR 1979, SC 49, JT 2009 (13) SC 643, 2009<br />
(2) SCC 592, JT 2007(3) SC 112, AIR 1979 SC<br />
429, AIR 2006 SC 182, AIR 2006 SC 898,<br />
(2007)9 SCC 497; (2009) 6 SCALE 17; (2009)7<br />
SCALE 622, JT(2009) 12 SC 198, 1972 AC<br />
1027, 1964 AC 1129, JT 1993 (6) SC 307, JT<br />
2004 (5) SC 17, (1996) 6 SCC 558, AIR 1996<br />
SC 715.<br />
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)<br />
1. Heard Sri Markandey Rai for the<br />
petitioner, Learned Chief Standing<br />
Counsel assisted by Standing Counsel<br />
representing respondents no. 1, 3, 4 and 5<br />
and Sri C.K. Rai, Advoc<strong>at</strong>e, for<br />
respondent no. 2.<br />
2. As agreed by learned counsels for<br />
the parties, since the pleadings are<br />
complete, the writ petition is being heard<br />
and decided finally under the Rules <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Court</strong> <strong>at</strong> this stage.<br />
3. Though the controversy, which<br />
has engaged the <strong>at</strong>tention <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Court</strong> by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> the present writ petition is very<br />
short but shows the ways and means<br />
adopted by the respondents for harassing<br />
their employees to the extent <strong>of</strong> not only<br />
putting him/her to gre<strong>at</strong> inconvenience<br />
but making the entire family to suffer to<br />
the extent <strong>of</strong> starv<strong>at</strong>ion without there<br />
being any illegality or irregularity on the<br />
part <strong>of</strong> such an employee.<br />
4. The petitioner, Smt. Shailendra<br />
Rai, an Assistant Teacher in a Junior <strong>High</strong><br />
School has approached this <strong>Court</strong> on<br />
account <strong>of</strong> non payment <strong>of</strong> her salary by<br />
the respondents since March' 2005<br />
without there being any fault on her part.<br />
A writ <strong>of</strong> mandamus has been prayed<br />
directing the respondents to pay salary to<br />
the petitioner since March' 1985.<br />
5. To start with, this <strong>Court</strong> directed<br />
the respondents to file counter affidavit<br />
informing the <strong>Court</strong> as to why salary has<br />
not been paid to the petitioner. On<br />
21.8.2006, the following order was passed<br />
by this <strong>Court</strong>:<br />
"Sri C.K. Rai Advoc<strong>at</strong>e has accepted<br />
notice on behalf <strong>of</strong> respondent nos. 2 and<br />
3, Standing Counsel accepts notice on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5.<br />
Respondents may seek instruction as<br />
to why payment <strong>of</strong> salary is not being<br />
effected in favour <strong>of</strong> the petitioner. The