REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 08, 2010 Janta Senior Secondary School, Kurukshetra .....Appellant VERSUS Sunita Rani Dhanda and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court whereby the claim of the respondent for payment of salary for the period from 1.4.1994 to 4.10.1994 has been allowed. This claim of the respondent was declined by the Trial Court on the ground that the respondent had not served the school and hence, there was no legal obligation on the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: part of the appellant to pay the salary for the period in question. It was also observed by the Trial Court that the relief claimed for recovery of amount by filing a suit would be maintainable under the Specific Relief Act and so the suit for seeking mandatory injunction and permanent injunction was not maintainable. The issue of limitation, however, was raised but the same was decided against the appellant. The lower Appellate Court, however, has referred to the proved documents and the oral evidence on record to show that respondent was given appointment on 23.5.1994. It is noticed that during cross-examination, no question was addressed if this letter was not signed by Sh.Sita Ram, Manager of the appellant-School. The letter through which the services of the respondent were terminated was also exhibited on record as Exhibit P3, which was again issued by the Manager of the appellant-School. This evidence has also remained unrebutted. If the respondent was not appointed then where was a need to terminate her. It is on the basis of these facts that the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the service of the respondent w.e.f 1.4.1994 to 4.10.1994 stood proved. Respondent was accordingly held entitled to arrears of salary. Learned counsel for the appellant would still submit that the appellant has been wrongly burdened with this liability. He would also point out that the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court without deciding the aspect of maintainability of the suit in the present form. No such plea about the maintainability of the suit was ever raised before lower Appellate Court as no such plea is found recorded in the judgment. It is only a question of payment of REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: salary to a teacher, who was able to show that she had worked for a particular period on the basis of documents and oral evidence on record. There is, thus, no substantial question of law, which would arise for determination in Regular Second Appeal. Finding the same to be without any merit, the appeal is dismissed. January 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE