Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
period of three years and more. Not only
this, the respondents shown the audacity
and courage of even not attending this
Court flouting its order to the maximum
possible level and it is only when they
found no other option, the salary is paid to
the petitioner. This Court is thus clearly
satisfied that their action by means of the
supplementary counter affidavit is not
bona fide but just to bury a just and valid
grievance of harassment of the petitioner
by their extraordinary, not only belated
but also illegal and arbitrary act, and they
are trying to get the matter consigned so
as to wriggle out of the clutches of law in
respect to affixing of responsibility and
liability upon the officer concerned for
not only illegal detention of salary of a
person for almost four years but also by
harassing and victimizing her for no fault
on her part.
14. In my view, here is a case which
cannot be allowed to shut in such a
manner by simply confining the matter to
record without considering as to whether
the respondents are in fact guilty of an
illegal and arbitrary act, and, if so, how
they must be made
accountable/responsible for the same.
15. An equity Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not only entitled
to look into valid grievances of the citizen
but also to pass appropriate orders against
the State or its officers and
instrumentality as the case may be where
they are found to have acted in a wholly
illegal and arbitrary manner. From the
own admission of the respondents in the
counter affidavit where they have not
shown any fault on the part of the
petitioner as a reason for non payment of
salary to her since March' 2005, the denial
of salary to the petitioner is evidently
arbitrary and also infringes her
constitutional right under Articles 21 and
300A which provides that no person shall
be deprived of her property except in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
in law. In the case in hand, the petitioner
has been deprived of her lawful salary and
wages, which she has earned after
rendering service, in a manner which is
not prescribed in law.
16. Now, I may give in brief the
explanation given by the respondents for
non payment of salary to the petitioner.
The petitioner was initially working as
Assistant Teacher in a Primary School,
Billi Obra and was promoted as Assistant
Teacher (C.T. Grade) on 7.2.2004. It
appears that a Government Order was
issued on 9.6.2004 that the Teachers in
the Primary Schools be allowed to be
adjusted/accommodated according to the
strength of the students in the schools and
may be shifted to other schools where
there is deficiency. The Board of Basic
Education issued certain directions on
24.7.2004 that the Teachers who are
posted/appointed after July 2003 if are
found in excess may be
transferred/adjusted and those who have
the longest period of posting should first
be adjusted. It appears that the Secretary,
Basic Education, Allahabad passed an
order on 11.2.2005 stating that in the
Junior High School, Billi, 8 teachers
working and five of such Teachers were
to be adjusted by the District Basic
Education Officer but since Sri Shailendra
Rai and Rajani Rajvanshi were two
teachers who were posted after July, 2003
therefore first of all the said two teachers
be adjusted and thereafter adjustment of
rest of three teaches should be made.
Pursuant to the said order of Secretary,