Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State of U.P. and others 1003
could be taken by them and, therefore,
they may be granted some further time to
comply with the Court's order dated
9.10.2009.
10. In the meantime, an application
no. 274455 of 2009 was filed on behalf of
respondent no. 5 stating that firstly due to
mistake of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate,
he did not get any information of the
order dated 17.8.2009 and, therefore,
could not appear on 5.10.2009 and
secondly that on 6.10.2009 when he
received the information by that time he
suffered viral fever and hence could not
appear on 9.10.2009. The above statement
is sought to be supported by a medical
certificate issued by the Medical Officer,
District Hospital, Sonebhadra dated
12.10.2009 certifying that the respondent
no. 5 Rajesh Kumar was in his treatment
as an outdoor patient since 8.10.2009 to
10.10.2009 and fitness certificate is being
issued from 12.10.2009.
11. It is to be noted that though
respondent no. 5 is impleaded by his
office and, therefore, he ought to be
represented by learned Standing Counsel
appointed by the State Government but in
this case, the application has been filed
through Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate,
who has also filed counter affidavit on
behalf of respondent no. 5 earlier. The
respondent no. 5 thus has engaged this
private counsel but whether for the said
purpose he obtained permission from the
Government or not is not clear from the
record.
12. On the request of learned
counsels for the parties, this matter was
taken up on 28.10.2009 on which date Sri
Manohar Prasad, Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Sonebhadra and Sri Rajesh Kumar,
Finance and Accounts Officer in the
office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Sonebhadra, both were present. A
supplementary counter affidavit sworn on
27.10.2009 at 3.10. P.M. by the
respondent 3 was also filed stating that by
cheque dated 15.10.2009, salary of the
petitioner for the period of March' 2005 to
October' 2009 has been paid and a
photocopy of Treasury Cheque dated
26.10.2009 was annexed. In para 4 and 5
of the supplementary counter affidavit, it
is said that due to some confusion and
misconception, some delay has occurred
in making payment of salary to the
petitioner, which is regretted and it is said
that since the petitioner's salary has been
paid, therefore, no further cause of action
survives and, the writ petition may be
dismissed as infructuous. The deponent of
the affidavit has also tendered his
unconditional apology.
13. Normally, when the relief sought
in the writ petition is met in the hands of
the respondents and this Court finds that
no further cause of actions survives, as a
normal practice, the writ petitions are
dismissed having become infructuous but
here is a case where the petitioner's salary
was detained by the respondents illegally
and without any lawful justification, as is
evident from the above facts, and when
she made this complaint to this Court in
August 2006, even then the respondents
did not look into the matter as a model
and law abiding employer having some
sense of sympathy and justice for their
employees, but here in a casual fashion
they filed incomplete and vague affidavits
shifting blame from one and another. No
attempt shown to be made to remedy the
grievance of the petitioner and that is how
she was compelled to suffer not only
herself but the entire family for a further