(1.) Heard Sri N.N. Jaiswal learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav for the respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4.
(2.) This appeal questions the interim directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition whereby the appellant had been called upon to issue necessary orders with regard to continuance and payment of salary to the respondent no. 5 as a Class-IV employee in the institution.
(3.) The litigation has a chequered history. The respondent no. 5 had earlier been proceeded against and the Principal of the institution had taken action and had not allowed the respondent no. 5 to work in the institution as a result whereof the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 11.2.2003 calling upon the Principal of the institution to allow the respondent no. 5 to join and also to pay him salary from the date he joined. The respondent no. 5 had not received his salary in spite of this order dated 11.2.2003 and consequently he filed Writ Petition No. 6193(S/S) of 2004 that was disposed off on 10.2006 holding that the respondent no. 5 was nowhere at fault and, therefore, the order and direction by the District Inspector of Schools ought to be implemented. The writ petition filed by the respondent no. 5 was allowed with a direction that the respondent no. 5 shall be allowed to join the institution and perform his duties and receive regular salary including arrears thereof. It was, however, observed that in the event there was any charge of unauthorized absence or indiscipline it was open to the authority to take any action permissible according to law.