C.W.P No.4794 of 1988 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : May 12, 2009 1. C.W.P No.4794 of 1988 Prithvi Singh and others vs The State of Haryana and others. 2. C.W.P No.908 of 1991 Mohan Lal and another vs The State of Haryana and others. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.4794 of 1988. Mr. Y.P.Malik, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.908 of 1991. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4794 of 1988 and 908 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.4794 of 1988. The claim in this writ petition is for release of salary for the period the petitioners worked with respondent No.4. The admitted facts are that respondent No.4 is a government aided school. During the period 1986 to 1987, the petitioners were C.W.P No.4794 of 1988 ::2:: appointed to different posts in the said School. Their appointments were approved by respondent No.2. However, at that time a litigation was pending in respect of the management of respondent No.4-School. Ultimately, by order dated 12.10.1984 (Annexure R-1), a civil suit challenging the election of the managing committee which had appointed the petitioners was decreed and by order dated 26.8.1987 (Annexure R-2), the appeal filed by the aggrieved persons was also dismissed. As soon as the managing committee which had appointed the petitioners was ousted, the services of the petitioners were also dis-engaged. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. In their separate written statements, respondents No.1 to 4 have not disputed the essential facts. However, the liability to pay the salary of the petitioners has been denied only on the ground that the managing committee which had appointed the petitioners was ultimately ousted through Court. It is, thus, argued that there was no relationship between the petitioners and the school management and, thus, the petitioners were not entitled to the salary for the period which they worked. In my opinion, the mere fact that the managing committee was ousted would not by itself render all their actions illegal so as to cause prejudice to a third person. By this logic even the salaries actually disbursed to the other staff can also be recovered. It is not disputed that the petitioners were selected by a duly constituted selection committee and that their appointments were duly approved by respondent No.2. It is also not disputed that the petitioners actually did work during the said period. Consequently, the pay of the petitioners for the period during which they actually worked cannot be denied to them. C.W.P No.4794 of 1988 ::3:: In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to verify the services of the petitioners, the period during which they had not been paid, and after conducting this exercise, to fix the pay of the petitioners and grant the same to them. Let this exercise be concluded within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk'