IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 358 of 2009 (S/S) 1. Bhupendra Prasad S/o Dani Ram Tamta R/o Village Jhulaghat, Post Jhulaghat, District Pithoragarh. 2. Smt. Munni Kohli W/o Sri Om Prakash Kohli R/o Village Piyana, P.O. Degree College Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Director of Education Vidyalayi Shiksha Nideshalaya, Mayur Vihar, Dehradun. 2. Addl. Director of Education Vidyalayi Shiksha, Government of Uttarakhand, Mayur Vihar, Dehradun. 3. Additional District Education Officer (Basic) Pithoragarh. ...…………. Respondents Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners for the period 08.11.2004 to 04.03.2006. A further direction has also been sought to direct respondent No. 2 3 to release salary of the petitioners with all consequential benefits in compliance of the order dated 14.02.2006, passed by the Director of Education, and for compliance of order dated 21.12.2005, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 1581 (S/S) of 2005, filed by the petitioners in earlier round of litigation. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit on record. 3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are Assistant Teachers in the Junior High Schools. They were transferred from District Champawat to District Pithoragarh vide order dated 25.06.2004 (copy Annexure –1 to the writ petition). In pursuance to said transfer order the petitioners reported for their duties before the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pithoragarh, in November 2004. But, Additional District Education Officer (Basic) did not allot them any school, nor salary was paid to them. Consequently, they filed Writ Petition No. 1581 (S/S) of 2005, before this Court. After hearing the parties, said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2005. Last two paragraphs of said writ petition are being reproduced below: “In the circumstances, it will be just and proper to direct the Director of Education, 3 Uttaranchal Govt. Dehradun to pass appropriate order on the representations moved by the petitioners on 04.06.2005 within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and may take appropriate action against the guilty officer for non compliance of the order passed by the Director of Education. Since the petitioner has not been allotted any Institution by the Addl. District Education Officer (Basic), Pithoragarh, and the petitioners are not getting salary for the date of their relieving, the Director of Education shall also ensure that payment of salary be made to the petitioner within a stipulated period prescribed by him. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.” 4) In pursuance to aforesaid order, copy of which is Annexure –2 to the present writ petition, in compliance of said order the Director of Education vide order dated 14.02.2006 (copy Annexure 3 to the writ petition) directed the authority concerned to post the petitioners in Block Kanalichina or in any other Block, and it should also be ensured that they are paid salary since November 2004 till their joining in the schools. It is further stated that the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pithoragarh, in compliance of order 4 dated 21.12.2005, passed by this Court read with order dated 14.02.2006, passed by Director of Education, gave posting to the petitioners in the two schools of Block Kanalichina, District Pithoragarh. In pursuance to said order dated 24.02.2006 (copy Annexure –4 to the writ petition) passed by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pithoragarh, the petitioners joined their duties in February / March 2006, but they were not paid salary for the period of November 2004 to January / February 2006. Hence, this writ petition. 5) A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pithoragarh (respondent No. 3) admitting the fact that the petitioners were subjected to inter-district transfer after order dated 25.06.2004, passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region. It is also stated that the petitioners also complained before the Uttaranchal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, Dehradun, for not taking decision in their mater, on which the petitioners were directed to rejoin their original schools in District Champawat. On this, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1582 (S/S) of 2005. However, it is admitted that in compliance of order dated 21.12.2005, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 1582 (S/S) of 2005, Director of Education vide his order dated 14.02.2006 directed that the petitioners be given posting and payment of their salary be also ensured from the date they have reported their 5 joining in the office of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 in his counter affidavit has stated that after consultation with the Director of Education, he has asked the petitioners to move application for leave so that their salary may be cleared for the aforesaid period. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were not at fault, as such, they cannot be asked to move leave application for the period i.e. November 2004 till February / March 2006 . 7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that the petitioners were not at fault and they cannot be asked to move application for medical / casual or other kinds of leave for the above period. Had the petitioners not joined at Pithoragarh, it could have been said that they could have moved application for extending their joining period. Since, they had already reported to respondent No. 3 in November 2004, and it is nobody’s case that they remained absent, as such, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should have been treated to be on duty and there should have been no difficulty for respondent No. 3 to get their salary drawn as directed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2005 read with order dated 14.02.2006, passed by Director of Education. 6 8) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondent No. 3 shall make payment of the salary of the petitioners for the aforesaid period of November 2004 when they reported on duty in his office till they joined their duties in the schools allotted to them by the respondent No. 3, treating them on duty, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before said authority. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 30, 2009. H. Negi 7