CWP No. 3179 of 2009 20.10.2011 Present: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission with regard to the non payment of salary to the petitioner. According to the petitioner even though she discharged her duties as a Language Teacher from 14.9.2006 till 10.6.2009, salary due, admissible and payable to a regularly appointed teacher was not paid to her. She claims that from 14.9.2006 up to 31.7.2008 no salary was paid to her, with effect from 1.8.2008 she was paid salary only @ `3000/- per month and that too for a period of three months and thereafter up to 10.6.2009 she was paid salary only @ `2000/- per month. 2. Annexure P-3 is a communication dated 30.8.2007 which reveals that petitioner’s name, amongst others, for taking over services of teachers of DAV Sr. Sec. School, Daulatpur Chowk, Distt. Una was recommended. From Annexure P-4, letter dated 10.3.2008 it is apparent that petitioner could not have been appointed as a Language Teacher for the reason that she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. Petitioner was ultimately appointed as a clerk on contract basis. -2- 3. Petitioner however has placed on record material (Annexure P-8) to show that till 10.6.2009, when her services were taken over as a Clerk, she had been teaching, in Hindi language, students of 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th standard. This fact however needs to be verified from the record. Whether petitioner has actually worked from 14.9.2006 up to 10.6.2009 as a Language Teacher and whether she is otherwise entitled for the monetary benefits claimed for are the questions which needs to be looked into and examined by respondents No. 2 and 3. Hence there shall be a direction to the said respondents to look into the matter and take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Respondent No. 2 shall also fix responsibility of either of the respondents, with regard to the payments, if any, to be made to the petitioner. 4. With the aforesaid directions, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 20, 2011(PK)