PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has claimed relief of regularization on the basis of Government Order No. 1220 -GAD of 1989 dated 11.9.1989 with effect from 1.6.1987 and consequential relief of fixation of seniority from the said date and payment of unpaid salary. He has further prayed for criminal action against the officials, who have filed wrong affidavit in SWP No. 44/94 as also LPA No. 130/99.
(2.) THIS appears to be a fourth round of litigation by the petitioner. Brief facts leading to the filing of present petition are that, the petitioner was engaged as teacher in Primary School, Goha, Dhanori from 1.6.1987 for a period of one month in the first instance. He was, however, allegedly allowed to work upto December, 1991. According to the averments made in the petition, he was paid salary only for a period of two months. After December, 1991, he was not permitted to work. SWP No. 694/88 was initially filed by him for regularization and release of salary. Said writ petition was, however, withdrawn with a liberty to make representation to competent authority vide order dated 29.10.1991. According to the petitioner, he withdrew writ petition on some assurance by the respondents that his services will be regularized. There is no such assurance on record. Petitioner appears to have made some representation but without any response, though he continued to work upto December, 1991 as claimed by him. On account of non - consideration of his representation, another SWP No. 44/94 was filed wherein some interim direction was passed for release of his salary. SWP No. 44/94 came to be finally disposed of vide order dated 22.2.1999 with the following directions: 'The question as to whether the petitioner had actually worked or not is a disputed question of fact. The respondent -authorities are accordingly directed: (i) To look into the certificate issued by the concerned Education Officer which has been placed on the record alongwith the rejoinder. (ii) To look into those papers where the presence of the petitioner is marked. If it is case of the respondent -State that some documents have been fabricated then a firm finding be recorded they would in this situation be at liberty to refer the matter to police authorities for registering a case. As indicated above, this a disputed question of fact. The decision in this regard is left to be taken by the respondent -authorities. Let decision be taken within a period of four months. The period of four months would begin from the date copy of the order passed by this Court is made available by the the petitioner to the respondent -authorities.' Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the court, some criminal proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. Accordingly, he preferred LPA No. 130/99 against the judgment dated 22.2.1999. The LPA Court disposed of appeal with the following direction vide its order dated 24.4.1999: 'We find merit in this contention and direct that proceedings against the appellant will follow only if it is found after inquiry that the certificate (s) produced by him from concerned Education Officer is fabricated and the papers on the basis of which, the same is issued, do not support the appellant. Consequently the impugned order is modified to the extent afore -said. Appeal is disposed of.'
(3.) CONSEQUENT upon the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, enquiry was conducted in regard to the period for which the petitioner actually served. Based upon the finding of the enquiry, order dated 24.9.2000 was passed whereby petitioner was found entitled to salary with effect from August, 1987 to December, 1991, which was ordered to be released and as admitted by the petitioner in para -11 of the petition that he has already received the salary for the said period.;