CWP 1543/03 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1543/2003 Satish Chandra Sharma Versus State & (3) Ors. Date of Order ::: 02/04/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Himmat Singh, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for respondent State Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite having worked as Teacher Gr.III in the respondents School from 20/05/92 to 09/05/2001, petitioner was not paid even minimum of pay scale of Teacher Gr.III. Petitioner holding degrees of BA & B.Ed and being eligible to the post of Teacher under Scheme of Service Rules, submitted application for appointment which was considered by respondents and was allowed to work as Primary School Teacher from 21/11/90; but was not paid any salary rather his services were terminated vide order dt. 25/04/92, against which he preferred CWP-3761/92 wherein this Court issued show cause notice to respondents and ad interim order was passed on 20/05/92 – in pursuance whereof, he was allowed to continue but finally ad interim order (supra) was vacated vide order dt.29/01/96 and ultimately, CWP-3761/92 was dismissed vide order dt.23/02/01. Grievance of petitioner is that he was not CWP 1543/03 //2// paid even minimum pay of the scale of Teacher Gr.III during the period when he was in service with respondents despite this Court observed vide order dt.23/02/01 while disposing of earlier CWP- 3761/92 (Ann.4) that he was entitled for minimum salary in pay scale of Teacher Gr.III for the period during which there was ad interim order in his favour particularly from 20/05/92 to 28/01/96. Counsel also submits that petitioner was still in service as Teacher Gr.III in respondents' School but since there was no affidavit or material placed on record, except submission made by his Counsel; as such this Court was constrained from making observations in his favour except to observe that it is for the State to take appropriate action in that regard and that being so, earlier CWP-3761/92 was partly allowed directing respondents that aforesaid amount of minimum salary shall be paid to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that despite vacation of stay order and so also earlier CWP- 3761/92 having disposed of vide order dt.23/02/01, petitioner was allowed by respondents to work as Teacher Gr.III till 09/05/2001; hence his grievance is that when petitioner was eligible and allowed to continue in service of respondent's School at their own even after vacation of stay CWP 1543/03 //3// order from 29/01/96 onwards till 09/05/01, he is entitled for salary for the period, which despite request made, has not been paid. Respondents have filed their reply wherein this fact has not been disputed that even after vacation of the stay order passed on 29/01/96, he was allowed to continue as Teacher Gr.III in respondents' School and finally his services were dispensed with from 09/05/01, for which salary was also not paid to him. Their counter is that despite this fact was brought to the notice of this Court when earlier writ petition (supra) was disposed of, no orders were passed for making payment of salary of the said period; as such no relief can be granted in instant petition. I have considered contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Earlier writ petition was filed by petitioner assailing his termination from the post of Teacher Gr.III made on 25/04/92 and his grievance was that termination given effect to was not legally sustainable and since there was ad interim order passed on 20/05/92 – pursuant to which he was allowed to continue in the service, and finally this Court has repelled his contention but considered it proper to direct the State to pay minimum salary of Teacher Gr.III for the CWP 1543/03 //4// period during which ad interim stay order was in operation (from 20/5/92 till vacation of stay order on 29/01/96). However, it appears from earlier order dt.23/02/01 in CWP-3761/92 that this Court took note of the submission of petitioner's Counsel that petitioner was still serving in the School and no steps have been taken by the State for dispensing from service in spite of vacation of stay order passed on 29/01/96. But since there was no material available on record to substantiate; as such it appears that this Court refrained from making any observation, however, observed that it is for the State to take appropriate action in that regard, if he is allowed to continue. Be that as it may, from material on record, this fact is not in dispute that even after vacation of ad interim order dt.29/01/96, petitioner had effectively worked as Teacher Gr.III upto 09/05/01 when his services were dispensed with as a consequence of final disposal of his earlier writ petition (supra), and for that period, no salary was paid to him. Certainly, in considered opinion of this Court, if somebody has worked – salary/wages of which he is entitled, but not paid thereof, it tantamounts to obtain work as bounded labour, which cannot be approved by this CWP 1543/03 //5// Court. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. Respondents are directed to make payment of minimum salary in pay scale of Teacher Gr.III on which, petitioner had effectively worked from 29/01/96 till 09/05/01 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum till actual payment. After due computation arrears be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/1543CW03-0204Tchr.doc