v-^-^^^^^^^^:^ •VI.Vl/^V^V^V i'>^--^-^~^'u--^-^-/~<-^^^y<y<^<yo-<yc^^^<y<^';.yr^r^^-J-^J'^^^^J'~-^.J'^-~f II'.T 2H3 HIGH COUai'OF enj:D:rC;i2URE OF MADHXA PIUDSSE AS J.ABaLPUR. Writ Petlt ion No.__3lH_^:,__.. of 98./ p^tiUoner s. Kamalsant SwarrAar .son of Shr.i K.3.L.S-i<?arnkar, agecl about 53 yea^s^ OccupationU.D.'r.Oau R.P.National Hlgher Secondary School Durg (K.p) -Tersu^- Re^p^dents : 1. State of M.g.-chrough Gonmissioner Educatlon Department M.P.Bfaopal. 2. Dtrector public Instrucjcion M.P.Bhopal. 3» Joint Durector Public Instruction Durg Divislon, Durg (M.P) 4. Prlnclpal, Dgu, E..P.Ngtxonal Higher Secondarz^- ^ . School Durg.(M.P) | : . '^l^.. °K°^S^ 5* Ghairman Dis-brict Sduca-^ion Society C/0 Dau R.P. National Eigher Secondary School Durg (M.p) *^CT^S-Jmfi§^^^i]^2g^21J^J;^_^§IZ^ INDI& .^.B^^G-A-M^«IiLI&MS2SJ^J?^3j^Hi^j^i3^^ PEj:)HTBir_K)l3__AlD_D^SCT_IOW iNQ/OB lORQgR ^ D@;^aS,JOF P3I IT ION | IiJ%Bil%^^l;%iI%1itSiSi®:%I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P. No. 744 pf 1998 Petitioner Rainakant Swanikar VERSUS Respondents State of M.P. & others SB Hon*ble Justice ShriSatteIi K. Agnihotrl Shri P.R, Pataxikar, counsel for (he petitioaer. Smt, Anju Ahuja, Deputy Goveniment Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3/State. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior counselwith Smt Sangeeta Mishra, couiisel for the rcspondents No. 4 and 5, QRALORDER (Passed on 21-7-2006) 1. Learaed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioner submits that fhe poiat of law iavolved m fhe facts of fhe present case is identical to fhat of ia Writ Petitioai No. 546/1991 decided on 28.11.1997 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (Dushyaiit Kumar Sharma Vs. State ofM,P, & ofhers), Leamed couiisel farther submits fhat fhe petitioner was sioiUarly sitaated aad he was workiag in fhe same mstitution Le. Dau, R,P. National Higher Secondary School, Diiqg. Case of the petitioner was also considercd by the D,P.C, A recoxmnendation was made ia his favour, 2. The Writ Petition No. 546/1991 on tiie siaular facts, has been decided m foUowmg terms, <epara5. TTw ordy question now appeam <o be dedded is whcxt relief should be granted to fhe petiiioner in respect of his einohmienis. In view of the fact ihe petitioner was workingfrom 1-10-88 as a lecturer in English, he is eniiiled to be paid his full salary including the arrears of scdary despiie the condition of his appointnteni which appears to be prima fade illegaL Tfie condition mentioned in the order dated 30-9-88, Annexure' B io the effect thai the petiiioner shodl not be paid his satary unless a grant is received, could noi have been made by the respondents No, 3 and 4 for the reason that the petitioner zuas not an employee of the State Govemment The peiitioner was ihe employee of the Society and the School and, therefore, it was their primary duty io pay him salary whether the Staie Govemment paid them grant or not Hozoever, ii is also the duiy of the State Govemment to pay the grant in respect qf the teachers employed by the SchooL Therefore, it is further directed thai ihe respondents No. 3 mzd 4 shall pay to ihe petitioner full salary from l-10-88 for his work done as a lecturer in English in acoordance with law. They shall also pay ihe arrears ofsalmy to the petitioner even ifthe grant is not given by the State Govemment They shall not await the grant However, the respondeni No. 1 is direcied to release the grant within iwo months from the daie of pcfssing of this order mzd pay the petiiioner all the arrears of his scdary. The petitioner is also entitled io interest ai ihe rate of 6% (svc perceni) per annum on the amount of arrears, from the respondents No. 3 and 4, who had employed the petitioner and taken workfrom 'S^l, hifn. The amount of security, ifany, outstanding, shall be refunded to the petitioner.ff Learaed counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 aad 5 disputes fhe facts with regard to work of fhe petltioner, However, tiie fact offhe petition m W.P. No. 546 /1991, which was decided with the above tenns, was identical and admitted by the counsel. . The respondents No, 4 aad 5 have not been preferred any Special Leave Petition agaiast fhe said order aad fhe order has became final, Having regard to the facts aiid the circumstaiices of the case, the respondents No. 4 aad 5 are directed to corisider 1Tie case of fhe petitioner m fhe light of fhe judgerncnt aiid order dated 28.11,1997 passed by the Migb Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur m Writ Pctition No. 546/1991 (Dushyant Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M,P. & others) on its merit, in accordance with law^ wifhia a period of 12 weeks. For the reasons stated-above, fhe writ pelition staads disposed of. No oxder as to costs, Bablu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge