1 15 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3254/2005 [SURESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.] DATED : 13.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.G.R.Punia for the petitioner; Mr.B.L.Bhati GA for the respondent. ***** By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to pay salary to the petitioner from 19.09.2002. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to selection on the post of Siksha Sahyogie in Rajeev Ganghi Swarna Jayanti Pathshala. The petitioner joined the duties on 16.09.2002 but then he was not given due benefit of salary. It is further contended that petitioner was otherwise selected as Siksha Sahyogie on 20.05.2002. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioner was not appointed as Siksha Sahyogie as the order of appointment does not contain the signature of Gram Sevak so as the order of joining therefore the petitioner is claiming undue benefits in the garb of manipulated documents and thus prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent is that writ petition should be dismissed in view of 2 the above. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that not only petitioner is working as Siksha Sahyogie from 16.09.2002 but pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.10.2006 he is otherwise been paid honorarium on month to month basis after passing of the order, therefore, it is contended that the denial of benefit of honorarium in those circumstances for preceding period is not proper. Looking to the short controversy involved in the matter which is that petitioner has somehow joined duty on 16.09.2002 and looking to further fact that there is no claim in the reply to the effect that he is no otherwise discharging such duties from aforesaid date, the respondents needs to be directed to pay honorarium to the petitioner from 16.09.2002 till 04.10.2006 i.e. when the interim order was passed by the Court. The aforesaid payment would ofcourse be paid subject to the actual working of the petitioner inasmuch as if petitioner has not discharged duties for any period out of for the period mentioned above then leaving that part the honorarium would otherwise be made admissible to the petitioner for the period for which he had actually worked. The payment of honorarium would be at admissible rate from time to time. This order would however not come in the way of the respondent to take action regarding alleged 3 manipulation of the document, regarding appointment and joining, if any. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in view of the directions above with no order as to costs. [M.N.BHANDARI],J. MAMTA