- (1.) A. P. Singh, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner nooks a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents including the D. I. O. S. to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner.
(2.) IT is alleged that the petitioner was appointed as Glass IV employee by the Principal of Khandelwal, Inter College, Bishungarh, Farrukhabad vide Annexure '3' to the writ petition in which no date of appointment is mentioned. The letter of appointment also appears to be doubtful as the same is not on the pad of the Institution. IT only bears the seal of the Institution. The name of the Principal is also not clear. From the appointment letter which has been filed as Annexure '3' to the writ petition. IT appears that the appointment was made consequent to the selection proceedings held on 10-3-1988. How the post had fallen vacant and became available for appointment of the petitioner has not been stated in the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition that the post had fallen vacant on account of the termination of services of Kishan Singh as the same were found irregular but what steps were taken before appoint ing the petitioner too have not been stated in the writ petition. Whether the posts were advertised and in what manner and how may persons applied for the appointment on the post, are also not stated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since the appointment of the petitioner, he is continuously working and, therefore, be is entitled for payment of his salary but neither the Principal of the College nor the D. I. O. S. has taken care to make payment of petitioner's salary. There is no averment in the writ petition that the institution is an aided Institution. Even if it is presumed that the Institution where the petitioner is working, is an aided Institu tion still it has to be established at to whether the post against which the petitioner was appointed, is one of the posts for which grant is being given by the State Government, for the reason that under the Payment of Salary Act, salary is payable only to such employees v ho are appointed on post for which grant has been approved by the State Government. In the writ petition nothing emerges as to whether the post against which the petitioner has been appointed, in the post for which grant is being provided by the State Government to the Institution. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary. Liability for payment of salary under the Payment of Salary Act will arise only in favour of such appointees who are holding a post for which grant has been released to the Institution concerned. The State Government which is a necessary party too has not been impleaded. The District Inspector of Schools is not liable to make payment. The liability is that of the Manag ing Committee of the Institution and that of the State Government under Section 10 of the Payment of Salary Act (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971 ). The writ petition thus has no merit and is accordingly rejected.
(3.) IT is however, directed that the District Inspector of Schools shall pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representation for payment of salary. In case he feels that the post against which petitioner has been appointed is a post against which grant is being paid by the State Government, he shall pass appropriate orders for payment within a period of one month from the date, a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the repre sentation is filed, In case the District Inspector of Schools rejects peti tioner's application, he shall give reasons. In that event, petitioner may proceed to recover the arrears of salary due to him in accordance with law from the Managing Committee. Petition rejected. .;