IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13574 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.09.2011 Surender Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. RANJIT SINGH J. C.M. No. 12177 of 2011 Written statement taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 13574 of 2010 The petitioner claims to have been appointed as JBT Guest Teacher by the Selection Committee duly constituted by respondent No. 5 i.e. Principal of respondent No. 4-School. The petitioner was appointed at the rate of ` 295/- per working day till 31.03.2009 and at the rate of ` 10,000/- per month as lump sum salary w.e.f. 01.04.2009. No appointment letter, however, was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was deputed to teach 4th standard and was made incharge of the class and to maintain attendance register. Despite having worked honestly, the salary of the petitioner was not paid. The petitioner, accordingly, requested the Civil Writ Petition No. 13574 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respondents to pay the salary. Respondent No. 5, however, allegedly demanded 40% share of his salary from the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not agree to the same which, according to the petitioner, made respondent No. 5 to be inimical. The attendance register of 4th standard was, accordingly, destroyed by Sh. Girraj Singh, the Head Teacher of the Primary Wing in order to destroy the proof of appointment and working of the petitioner. The petitioner made a written application on 10.02.2009 for payment of his salary. The petitioner subsequently made a written complaint on 16.03.2009 and also prayed for inquiry into the allegations of destruction of the official records. The Block Education Officer, Ballabgarh after detailed inquiry submitted his report Annexure P-6 holding respondent No. 5 responsible for destruction and manipulation of record. Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad directed respondent No. 3 to pay salary and also directed departmental action against the erring officials. Respondent No. 3 directed Block Education Officer, Ballabgarh to comply with the order. However, respondent No. 5 himself was responsible for non-payment of salary and also for destruction of official record of attendance registers did not pay the salary. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3517 of 2010 seeking direction to payment of salary. This writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice issued by the petitioner within a period of two months. Thereupon the claim of the petitioner was rejected by passing the order, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7. The Civil Writ Petition No. 13574 of 2010 (O&M) -3- petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition to impugn this order. Despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed on behalf of the State. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 5, however, has been filed and is taken on record. The State counsel had prayed for some time to file reply, which was opposed by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the State had already taken sufficient opportunities to file reply. The case, accordingly, has been heard. Counsel for respondent No. 5 has drawn my attention to the impugned order, Annexure P-11 to point out that the inquiry held by DEO, Ballabgarh was found to be suspicious by the District administration. The inquiry is being conducted against by the SDM, Ballabgarh whose report is awaited. Counsel has also referred to the contents of the reply filed by respondent No. 5 to say that he is appearing before the inquiry being conducted by the SDM where the petitioner is not putting his appearance. The issue involved is whether the petitioner had worked as Guest teacher at all or not. The claim of the petitioner is that he has worked as Guest teacher and it is only because of respondent No. 5 that his salary is being not paid. Respondent No. 5 has, in the meantime, retired. Whether the petitioner has worked or not and whether he would be entitled to any salary, in this background, thus, is in serious dispute. Parties have to prove their respective assertion and on that basis, this case can be so resolved. It would not be appropriate to go into the disputed question of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a civil suit where Civil Writ Petition No. 13574 of 2010 (O&M) -4- these issues can be decided. The petitioner is relegated to his alternative remedy of filing either civil suit or any such remedy which may be available to claim salary if due to him. September 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE