IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16646 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Parwinder Kumar & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners that has not been paid since March 2008. Prayer further is for payment of interest on the arrears. It has been pleaded that in response to advertisement dated 4.12.2001, the petitioners being eligible, applied for the post of JBT/ ETT Teacher in the Education Department. The petitioners had applied for vacancies CWP No.16648 of 2008 [2] reserved for candidates belonging to economically backward class. Merit list was prepared and displayed on the notice board in the offices of District Education Officers of the State. The petitioners were allotted stations in BC category but later on, they were not allowed to join on the ground that their annual family income had increased from Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioners filed a representation that at the time of making application, the annual family income of the petitioners was less than Rs.1 lac and therefore, claim of the petitioners was required to be considered, as the merit of the petitioners was higher than that of the last candidate selected. No action was taken whereupon the petitioners were constrained on approaching this Court way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.16725 of 2003 seeking directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as ETT Teacher as per their merit and also to fix their pay notionally and to assign seniority in the cadre in accordance with merit of the petitioners by the Departmental Selection Committee in General category. In response to the pleadings in the said petition, the respondents filed an affidavit that cases of the petitioners have been CWP No.16648 of 2008 [3] considered as per their merit. The petitioners have been found eligible for the post of JBT/ ETT Teacher and necessary appointment letters have also been issued to them. The petition was disposed of having become infructuous. In regard to other prayer, it was observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to make representation to the respondents. Representation was required to be decided within a period of 14 days of disposal of the petition. In the eventuality of acceptance of claim of the petitioners, same was required to be granted within a period of one month. The petitioners, on 1.2.2005, submitted representation for fixation of seniority and pay in accordance with their merit as determined by the Departmental Selection Committee. Subsequently, a number of reminders were issued. The necessary decision, however, was not taken. The petitioners again approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.13831 of 2008. It has been asserted in Para 13 of this petition that the petitioners have been working as JBT/ETT Teachers since March 2008 (wrongly given in the petition as March 2004) and have been performing their duties continuously. CWP No.16648 of 2008 [4] Salary, however, has not been paid. In Para 15 of the petition, it has been pointed out that on the one hand, the petitioners who have been serving the employer have not been paid salary, on the other hand, crores of rupees are spent on purchase of luxury cars for ministers. Reply by way of short affidavit dated 2.2.2009 has been filed by Mr. Sohan Lal Kashyap, District Education Officer (EE), Ferozepur, wherein the stand taken is that salary of petitioner No.1 has already been paid. In regard to petitioner No.2, steps have been taken to release the salary. It has further been stated that pay of the petitioners has been fixed notionally from the date junior to the petitioners were appointed. Seniority of the petitioners would be fixed in the seniority list accordingly which is in the process of being re-casted. On consideration of the facts, it remains the admitted position that till the filing of the petition on 17.9.2008, the petitioners had not been paid salary. It has not been specifically mentioned in the reply as to on which date the salary of the petitioner (No.1) had been CWP No.16648 of 2008 [5] released. Salary of petitioner No.2 has still not been released. I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have no right to take work from the petitioners without paying salary. It transpires that the petitioners had to approach this Court a number of times for assertion of their legal right. It was the duty of the respondents to have passed appropriate orders in accordance with law, as per merit of the petitioners determined by the Departmental Selection Committee, which was not done. It is only after filing of the petition that orders of appointment were issued. Subsequently, even other aspects of the services of the petitioners had not been determined which also was the duty of the respondents to do. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have failed in performing their duty to pay the petitioners the salary for the period they have worked. Salary is required to paid at the end of every month for which a person serves the employer. Infact the inaction on part of the respondents has resulted in multiplicity of litigation. The petitioners have had to approach CWP No.16648 of 2008 [6] the writ court thrice over for assertion of their claims. This petition is allowed. The respondents are directd to release the salary of petitioner No.2 within a period of 10 days from today alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears. Petitioner No.1 would also be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of salary. The petitioners would also be compensated by way of costs amounting to Rs.10,000/-, for each petitioner. The respondents would at liberty to recover the costs from the officers/officials who are found responsible for the delay. (AJAI LAMBA) October 27, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?