- (1.) The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contended that, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has succeeded in an application, being Application No. 167 of 1978, by judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 19-1-1979 whereby he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages, respondent No. 3 does not permit him to resume the duties and, therefore, the petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents to pay the salary from 4-5-1978 to 8-6-1980. It is undisputed position that, on 8-6-1980, the petitioner resumed his duties. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent authorities, i. e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to pay the petitioner arrears of salary directly.
(2.) From the correspondence subsequent to the judgment of the Tribunal, it appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The petitioner contended that, he had reported for duties but the respondent No. 3 did not permit him to resume, whereas the respondent No. 3 contends that the petitioner was not resuming duties. However, from the correspondence, it becomes undisputable that, at least on 11-5-1979 the petitioner had reported alongwith the representative of the District Education Officer, the respondent No. 2 and by letter No. 63/79-80 dated 11-5-1979, respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 2-District Education Officer, Mehsana, that the petitioner had reported for duties on 11-5-1979. However, according to the petitioner, he was not paid the salaries from that date, i. e. 11-5-1979 to 8-6-1980, the date on which he was permitted to resume.
(3.) The petitioner had reported on 11-5-1979 and, therefore, the school ought to have paid the salaries from 11-5-1979 till the date it actually permitted the petitioner to resume duties, as it was not because of the volition on the part of the petitioner that he could not resume duties upto 8-6-1980. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the petitioner is entitled to salaries at least from 11-5-1979 till the date he actually resumed duties. The School-Management is, therefore, directed to pay unpaid salaries to the petitioner from 11-5-1979 to 8-6-1980, within a period of 15 days from the date of this judgment, if the management does not do so, the District Education Officer is directed to pay the same from the grant available to the respondent school management. Rule made absolute.;