CWP No. 17678 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 14, 2009 CWP No. 17678 of 2007 Vijay Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CWP No. 7765 of 2008 Managing Committee ..... Petitioner Versus The Director, Secondary Education, Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yash Deep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 17678 of 2007 and for respondent No.3 in CWP No.7765 of 2008. Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP No. 17678 of 2007 and for respondents No. 1 and 2 in CWP No.7765 of 2008. Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP No. 17678 of 2007 and for petitioner in CWP No. 7765 of 2008. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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 two writ petitions bearing CWP No. CWP No. 17678 of 2007 2 17678 of 2007 and 7765 of 2008. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 17678 of 2007. The petitioner who was working as a Clerk with respondent No.4 was chargesheeted for embezzlement and his services were terminated on 9.3.2000. The said order was set aside in appeal on the ground that the mandatory approval of the District Education Officer under Section 3 of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1971 was not obtained. The appellate order was challenged by respondent No.4 in CWP No.1668 of 2003 which was dismissed on 17.11.2003 with the clarification that the Managing Committee shall be at liberty to take action against respondent No.2 by following the due process of law. On 12.1.2004 the respondent No.4 placed the petitioner under suspension and ordered fresh inquiry which again culminated in an order of termination of service dated 20.1.2007. The said order was sent to respondent No.3 for approval thereafter. Respondent No.3 has not considered the proposal till such time as the original order is implemented. The proposal for termination is the subject mater of CWP No.7765 of 2008. Learned counsel for the respondents states that since the original order of termination has been reconfirmed, therefore, there is no occasion for making any payment to the petitioner till such time as the proposal is either approved or decision is taken not to approve the same. In my opinion this argument would be available to learned counsel for the respondents only for the period after 20.1.2007 when the second order of termination was passed. Undoubtedly when the petitioner was suspended on 12.1.2004 it could only be if he was an employee under respondent No.4. In these circumstances the interest of justice would be served if the respondent No.4 is directed to release the CWP No. 17678 of 2007 3 suspension allowance of the petitioner from the period 12.1.2004 to the period 20.1.2007. The respondent No.4 is directed to make the payment of the arrears within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the said amount would carry 8% interest from the date of accrual till the date of realisation. As regards CWP No. 7765 of 2008 the District Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar is directed to consider and pass a speaking order on the proposal of the management within a period of two months from the payment of the due amount to the petitioner. Both writ petitions are disposed of . January 14, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) sunita JUDGE