- (1.) A. Chakrabarti, J. The petitioner has moved the present writ petition taking for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to him as a clerk in Vidhyartbi Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jagdishpur, Bardhiha Deoria with a effect from March, 1984 in terms of judgment and mandatory injunction dated 4-2-1985 passed in Suit No. 1990183-Committee of Management v. Stale of U. P.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending, inter alia on the ground that in year 1979 the said institution, which was earlier a junior High School, was granted recognition for High School. With the increase of strength as students the Committee of Management appointed the petitioners an additional clerk with effect from 1-7-1980 in terms of ap pointment letter dated 26-6- 1980, (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition ). As the respondents failed to pay salary to all teachers and employees of the institution the committee of management filed a suit in the court of Munsif Kasiya being Suit No. 1900/83 Committee of Management v. State of V. P. , impleading therein the Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools as defendants. It is stated that said suit was decreed with costs. When exparte decree was passed in the form of mandatory injunction direct ing the defendants to treat the service of all teachers and employees of the ins titution, including the petitioner regular and to pay salary under the payment of Salary Act, 1971, copy of the said judgment dated 4-2-1985 is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. It has also been contended that there was no appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree and an opinion was obtained that no appeal can be filed in view of the delay. The relevant letter showing the aforesaid material has been annexed as Annexure No, 4 to the writ petition. On being requested on the letter dated 14-2-1988 by the Manager of the College to pay salary to the petitioner and six Class IV employees, the Director of Education by his letter dated 4-8-1988 issued a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to comply with the direction given in the judgment of the civil court in and six Class IV employees were concerned. As the payment of salary of the petitioner was not specifically mentioned therein, the petitioner was compelled to make a representation and on 2-11- 1988 the Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to pay salary to six Class IV employees in terms of the said judgment but again petitioner's salary was not paid specifically referring to there in. As in spite of his representations the salary of the petitioner was not being paid, the present writ petition was moved for the afore mentioned relief.
(3.) THE respondents contested the said proceeding by filing counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit the ex-parte decree are not denied and it has also not been claimed that the said ex-parte decree was set aside or modified at any stage. But, in spite of the said decree the appointment of the petitioner was disputed in the said counter affidavit, The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit wherein it has been disclosed that in terms of the interim order of this court in the present writ petition the payment of salary of the petitioner is not being made. 7 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the writ petition as also the affidavits including the annexures therein it remains ap parent that the said decree by the civil court, being suit No. 1900/83, though ex-parte, has finally provided for regularisation of the employment of the petitioner describing him as an additional clerk and also providing for payment of salary in terms of the relevant statute. It is also not disputed that other persons mentioned in the said decree has been given the benefit by the defen dants therein, and during the course of argument the learned standing counsel has made no explanation that the petitioner is not entitled to get the said benefits in terms of the decree of civil suit. The petitioner contends that as was not plaintiff in the said suit, he could not get the decree executed and he has no other remedy except the writ proceeding for the purpose of com pelling the respondents to implement the said decree as otherwise the peti tioner would be treated arbitrarily and is being deprived of salary being valu able property. 9. In the circumstances, as aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner in terms of the judgment and decree dated 4-2- 1985 passed by the civil court in Suit No. 1900 of 1983-Committee of Management v State of V. P. , month by month in accordance with law and to pay all arrear salary within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. Petition allowed. .;