COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 7201/2001 Smt. Rasmi Agarwal …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others …….Respondents Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 4 & 6. 30th April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner. 2. Facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued on 6.12.1996 inviting applications for filling up the vacant posts in Arya Kanya Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Doiwala, Dehradun. Thereafter Selection Committee was constituted and the petitioner was appointed on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher in the aforesaid institution. The District Inspector of Schools granted approval to the appointment with the condition that the payment shall be made by the Committee of Management, as the institution was not in grant in aid. Subsequently, the institution came under grant in aid list in the year 1997. Thereafter petitioner approached the higher authorities for payment of salary. But the 2 Additional Director of Education made an enquiry about these appointments and found that the irregularity was made by the Committee of Management in making these appointments and consequently suggested that the payment of salary will be made by the Committee of Management. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter, the aforesaid institution came under grant in aid. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Joint Director of Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri Garhwal vide his letter dated 4.7.1998 directed the District Inspector of Schools that since the aforesaid institution has come under grant in aid, therefore, ensure the payment of salary. Respondent no. 3 further issued a suggestive to the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 17.7.1998 indicating that teachers/employees who have been appointed and approval thereof has been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools, such teachers/employees shall be paid the salary from the grant in aid. Chief Accounts Officer vide his letters dated 6.2.1999 and 27.3.1999, which are contained in Annexure 10 & 11 to the writ petition, also directed for payment of salary to the teachers/employees working in the aforesaid institution. It is also undisputed that the petitioner has worked in the aforesaid institution and is still continuing. Therefore, she is entitled to get her salary. 3 5. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. If the petitioner has worked, salary shall be paid to her in compliance of the aforementioned orders of Joint Director of Education and Chief Accounts Officer. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.4.2008 Prabodh