BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in fact the second round of litigation before this Court by the petitioners (two in number) claiming payment of salary from the head of grant-in-aid. It is contended that the petitioners were engaged in a school established by the respondent No.3. The said school was receiving grant-in-aid but the salary was not being paid to the petitioners as was payable under the provisions of the relevant Act. The petitioners were, therefore, left with no option but to approach this Court by way of filing of writ petition being W.P. No.94/1999. The said writ petition was allowed and an order was issued in favour of the petitioners. Despite passing of order, since payment of salary was not made and non-compliance of the order passed by this Court was done, a Contempt Petition No.665/2009 was filed before this Court. Certain statements were made by the respondents, therefore, an observation was made by this Court in the said contempt petition and the same was disposed of finally, as a result the petitioners were entitled to be paid the amount. However, again the amount was not being paid, therefore, the petitioners were required to file this writ petition.

(2.) In reply to the notices issued, the respondent No.3 has filed a return and has contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the amount from the head of grant-in-aid as for them no grant whatsoever was paid by the State Government. It is contended that a proposal was sent by the respondent No.3 for giving the grant for payment of salary to the persons like the petitioners. The names of the petitioners were included in this proposal. However, the State Government granted the grant for payment of salary to only one Headmaster, 13 Assistant Teachers and one Peon. The grant was never paid for the purposes of payment of salary to the petitioners as the names of the petitioners were included in the list of those, who were not to be paid the wages from grant-in-aid. The salary of the petitioners was calculated in terms of the order of their appointment and since calculation was done, the arrears of salary was already paid to the petitioners. Since this has been done, the institution itself has been closed, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition.

(3.) A rejoinder is filed by the petitioners stating that the amount of salary was not rightly paid to the petitioners. In fact the petitioners were entitled to be paid the salary treating as if the petitioners were also appointed on regular establishment in the pay scale applicable to the post on which they were appointed. The petitioners are to receive a heavy amount from the respondent No.3 towards the arrears of salary but this amount has not been paid. Therefore, it is contended that the averments and statements made in the return filed by the respondent No.3 are totally false to the knowledge of the authorities of respondent No.3. The State has filed no return.