BALRAJ MOTWANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The recovery steps being pursued by the Respondent-Educational Institution and the Society running the said Institution, simply yielding to the objection raised by the Local Fund Audit Department notwithstanding the fact that the Educational Institution is not an Aided College (though it is getting some grant-in-aid from the State) and the salary of the Petitioners are coming with the funds of the Educational Institution (as contributed by the students by way of fees), form the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that this is the second round of litigation and there is total non-application of mind, both on the part of the Government and also on the part of the Respondent-Educational Institution. To have proper adjudication, it will be worthwhile to refer to some instances / circumstances which led to the cause of action. The Petitioners are working as Assistant Professors in the Respondent-Educational Institution. For their own reasons, they went on strike for nearly six months and they were not obtaining any salary during the relevant period. Later, the Government intervened and an Administrator was appointed, who continued for nearly three years and thereafter, by virtue of the statutory mandate, the present governing body resumed its office. When the Institution was being run by the Administrator, a decision was taken with regard to the service and such other aspects, related to the period of strike and it was decided to grant three months salary to the Petitioners, to be set off against the 'Earned Leave' standing to the credit of the Petitioners. It was accordingly, that the amount equal to three months' salary was paid to the Petitioners.

(3.) One fine morning, some audit objection was raised by the Local Audit Fund Department, observing that the amount paid to the Petitioners and such others as above, required to be recovered. This was sought to be challenged by the Petitioners pointing out that the Institution was running on the funds of the Society and as such, there was absolutely no power vested in the Government or the Local Fund Audit to intervene in the day to day running of the Institution and order recovery. A number of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court and all the cases were finalized as per common judgment dated 25.10.2017, whereby some direction was given, the operative portion, which as contained in paragraphs 4 & 5, is extracted below :