KIRAN SIKARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an approved teacher of the respondent No.2. Learned counsel contended that under section 5 of the M.P. Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, the State Government is liable to pay the salary, but her salary is not being paid. He also refers to Annexure P -5 and contends that according to Annexure P -5 a letter was forwarded to Up Sanchalak, Gwalior by Siksha Adhikari, Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha, and instead of this the salary has not been paid. The State has not filed any return inspite of several opportunities allowed. On the last hearing it was specifically directed that in case if the return is not filed, it will be taken that the respondents/State have to file no return. Consequently, it is to be taken that respondents have to file no return.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner points out that Annexure P -13 is the reply of the letter Øekad@vuq -/29 -96/1438, dated 2.5.95 i.e. Annexyre P -12. In this view of the matter it is apparent that Annexure P -15 also shows that the letter of approval of the petitioner Smt. Kiran Sikari was sent along with that letter for approval. In this way the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no approval does not appear to be correct. It may also be observed here that there is yet another document Annexure P -17 which shows that Up -Sanchalak, Siksha, had written a letter to the Sachiv, Mill Hill Pradamik Vidyalaya, Gwalior, with respect to the petitioner Smt. Kiran Sikari.