R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) In action by administrative authorities deliberate or other wise results in untold miseries and sufferings to a common man and is capable of creating strong suspicion that the movement is stiffened for reasons which are extraneous and are destructive of rule of law. Such is the unfortunate story of this petition, fourth in series of litigation. Since 30th November, 1985 when U.P. Public Services Tribunal allowed the claim of petitioner, a teacher appointed in primary Pathshala of Zila Parishad Allahabad on a meagre salary of Rs. 20/- in 1965 whose Services stood transferred after taking over of primary schools by Basic Shiksha parishad with effect from 1st July, 1972 by granting a declaration that petitioner was entitled to get his salary with effect from 1975 onwards from opposite parties the U.P. Board of Basic Education, Allahabad, District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad and Deputy Inspector of Schools Allahabad. The petitioner was further held entitled to get his salary from the opposite parties each month as long a he continued in service.
(2.) With this the poor teacher must felt satisfied little realising that his agony was not over. Despite the order of a competent authority no redress was granted to him and his oral and paper request to the authorities having drawn a a blank he approached this court by way of writ petition No. 10090 of 1986 in in which an interim mandamus was issued on 11th September, 1986 directing opposite parties to pay salary of petitioner. Even then there was no movement may be because his poverty was smiling at his inability to provide that push which would have resulted in immediate relief. And in January, 1987 he once again approached this Court but this time by way of contempt application and when notice was issued on it the Basic Education Officer awoke and issued a letter on 23rd February, 1987 asking the petitioner to join and informed the Court that he had already requested Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad on 9th October, 1986 to pay the salary. But once the fear of contempt was gone the petitioner was back to square one. And what to say of arrears from 1975 even the current salary from the date of joining has not been paid
(3.) Facts narrated above are so shocking that they leave an unhappy impression that the authorities for reasons best known to them have acted with profound disregard to the orders passed not only by the Tribunal but even this Court. Even the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel candidly confessed that action of opposite parties was indefeasible.;