SATYAWATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner, from the amount of grant -in -aid which was to be released in favour of respondent No. 4. Petitioner also sought a direction against the respondent -management to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service benefits.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 was filed. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that since petitioner did not work during this period, she was not entitled for any other amount because of the principle of "No work no pay". While referring to the termination order dated 6.7.1992 (Annexure P -2), learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that since number of students was not sufficient to retain the petitioner in service, respondent -management was left with no other option except to terminate the service of the petitioner. He next contended that it was also pointed out in the order itself that if the number of students increased in future, she will be granted appointment on preferential basis.