K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are untrained teachers in Harijan Primary Pathashalas in the district of Ghazipur. THEy have drawn Rs. 335/- which is monthly salary according to the new pay scales. THEy have been paid till December, 1987. Since January, 1988 their payments have been stopped. THEy are in service and are still working as Assistant Teachers untrained in Harijan Primary Pathashalas. It has been stated in para 21 of the writ petition that they are in service and their services have neither been suspended nor terminated but payment to them have been stopped.
(2.) AGGRIEVED, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They have prayed for the following reliefs :- (a) issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order No. 1778/26-78-7 (88)/74, dated 4th April, 1978. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated March 16th 1988 written by Additional Director Harijan and Social Welfare Lucknow to Deputy Director, Harijan and Social Welfare, Varanasi, Region, Varanasi. , (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 16-12-1988 (Annexure no, 14 to this writ petition). (d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay the regular salary of the petitioners. (e) issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay the arrears (from January, 1988) very soon. (f) issue other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper. (g) award costs of the petition to the petitioners. According to the counter affidavit filed in this case, it appears that according to the opposite parties, the petitioners were not legally appointed, therefore, the opposite parties have taken stand that their payments have been correctly stopped in the present case. Vide para 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that the petitioners have been paid till December, 1987. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, it has been emphasized that the appointment of untrained teachers is not in consonance with the Government Order dated 4-4-1978, therefore, there is no duty upon the opposite parties to pay the salary of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we think that the petitioners are entitled to their pay till their services are terminated strictly in accordance with law. In the present writ petition are not deciding the various contentions raised by the parties. We confine our conclusions to the question that admittedly when the petitioners are in service and are performing their duties and if their appointments are not in consonance with the Government Order of 1978 and they had been paid till December, 1987, there is no earthly reason why the petitioners should not be paid till they are serving the institution. We think that the opposite parties are wrong in not paying the salary to the petitioners for the last two years and more. The ends of justice demands that the opposite parties may be directed to pay the salary of the petitioners till they are in the service of the institution.
(3.) IT is note-worthy that some untrained teachers who have been appointed after 29-3-1985 and their services have been terminated, vet they are getting salaries due to stay order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15309 of 1985 Nagendra Singh v. Dy. Director, Harijan and Social Welfare, Gorakhpur. Since the petitioners have been appointed much before 29-3-1985 and they have been paid till December, 1987, we think that it is but proper that the petitioners should be paid their salary till they are serving the institution. It is necessary to observe that on the materials in the present writ petition there is a dispute between the parties whether the petitioners were legally appointed. According to the petitioners they have been legally appointed and according to the opposite parties their appointment is illegal and that the opposite parties and their officers have committed wrong in appointing the petitioners and the officers might be called upon for their conduct. In such circumstances, it is but proper that the petitioners should not be punished for the wrong of the officers of the opposite parties who have appointed the petitioners in contravention of the G. O. of 1978. If knowingly the petitioners who were untrained teachers were appointed and there is provision for training of untrained teachers, why should the petitioners be not afforded an opportunity for training and why should they not be absorbed in the institution specially when their appointments were necessitated due to the strength of students in the institutions. Since the petitioners are working in the institution, their payment should not be stopped otherwise it would lead to starvation of their familes. In the facts and circumstances of- this case, it is desirable that the opposite parties should pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners within a month from the date when a certified copy of this order is produced before them.;