# Smt. Raju v. John V. Moradabad Development Authority and others - **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 108 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2001 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-raju-v-john-v-moradabad-development-authority-and-others-39759 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 2All] Smt. Raju V. John V. Moradabad Development Authority and others 108 Since the husband of Respondent No. 3 was serving the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority no wrong has been committed in allotting the house in question. 9. We are astonished to learn of the direction issued by the highest executive of the Commissionary who is the Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority. The scheme in question never permitted an allotment of house in favour of wife of a gunner/body guard of any of the officials of the Moradabad Development Authority. Apparently the direction issued showed favouritism which is impermissible and against the constitutional philosophy enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution. Further it is indeed regrettable that the repeated cry of the destitute widow, who has lost her son and was residing in a dilapidated house on rent, had gone in vain. Admittedly she had complied with all the terms and conditions imposed for allotment of the house under the scheme in question and her learned counsel assures further compliance by her of the remaining terms and conditions. To have a house for shelter is a basic requirement of every citizen of our country. We are satisfied that her right has been breached and she has been coerced to knock the doors of this Court for securing justice. We hold that she is entitled to have the house, apart from suitable damages. 10. In the result we quash the order of allotment of the house in question in favour of Respondent No. 3 and command Respondent No. 1 & 2 to allot the house in question in favour of the petitioner provided she shows her willingness to comply with the remaining terms and conditions, and allow this writ petition with cost quantified however, to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only which must be paid by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 within three months from today. 11. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for its intimation to and follow up action by them. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21 %/( $.<2* - 7+( +21 %/( $.<2* - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 6PW 5DMX 9 -RKQ «3HWLWLRQHUV 9HUVXV 7KH 5HJLRQDO -RLQW 'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV 6KUL $VKRN %KXVKDQ &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6& &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 3D\PHQW RI 6DODU\ ± 0LQRULW\ UHFRJQLVHG LQVWLWXWLRQ FRPH XQGHU WKH SXUYLHZ RI 83 +LJK 6FKRRO DQG ,QWHUPHGLDWH &ROOHJH 3D\PHQW RI VDODU\ $FW ± 3HWLWLRQHU EHLQJ 06F 0SKLO DQG %(G JRW DSSRLQWHG $VVWW 7HDFKHU RQ SHUVXHQW WR DGYHUWLVHPHQW SXEOLVKHG LQ μ$PDU 8MMDOD¶ 2QFH WKH DXWKRULWLHV IRXQG WKH DSSURYDO ± 6DODU\ QRW SDLG XQGHU WKH 3D\PHQW RI 6DODU\ $FW LV QR VLJQLILFDQW +HOG ± 3DUD 2QFH WKH DXWKRULW\ KDV QRWHG LQ LWV UHSRUW WKDW WKH DSSRLQWPHQW RI SHWLWLRQHU LV DSSURYHG WKH IDFW WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV QRW SDLG VDODU\ XQGHU 3D\PHQW RI INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 109 6DODULHV $FW LV QRW VLJQLILFDQW 3D\PHQW PD\ EH PDGH E\ FRPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW IURP LWV RZQ UHVRXUFHV DQG LI VDODU\ LV QRW SDLG WHDFKHU FDQQRW EH SHQDOLVHG IRU ZRUNLQJ ZLWKRXW VDODU\ ± WKRXJK XQ ODZIXOO\ ZLWKKHOG By the Court 1. The Committee of Management /respondent no. 3 is served by Dasti notice as well as R.P.A.D. through registry vide office report dated 7.2.2001 as Notice will be deemed to have been served by registered post under Chapter VIII, Rule 2 Explanation II, Rules of the Court. Respondent no. 1,2 and 4 filed counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit in reply there to has also come on record. 2. This petition is being finally decided at this stage as all the respondents have been adequately given suitable opportunity to contest the case. 3. The Baptist Higher Secondary School, Agra (called 'school') is a recognised institute under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (called as 'Act No. 22 of 1921') 4. It was recognised as Higher Secondary School (minority school) vide order dated 25.2.84 by the U.P. Board. The school came on grant -in-aid list of the State Government. The institution came under the purview of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 with effect from 1.4.1996 which became applicable to it. 5. The petitioner passed M.Sc. (Chemistry), M.Phil.(Chemistry) and B.Ed. and being fully qualified and eligible to the post advertised in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' by the Management of the school for making appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school. In pursuance to her application, she was issued interview letter dated 26.6.95. The aforesaid averments, contained from paras 1 to 6, have not been denied in the counter affidavit. According to the petitioner, she joined her duties as Assistant Teacher in the school on July 10,1995. She was confirmed vide Management order, communicated through letter dated May 30,1997 in the school and filed certain certificates dated 22.4.96 and 24.1.98 (Annexure 2 to the petition). 6. Before and after the school came under grant-in-aid list the certain formalities were to be observed. The concerned educational authority initiated process, which included financial survey and obtaining certain reports regarding actual working staff of the school on relevant date. Vide report dated 26.12.97, the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra recommended payment of salary with respect to other teachers and staff of the school, the said report did not recommend for salary being paid under the Payment of Salaries Act to the petitioner. The aforesaid report shows that the teachers of the school had resorted to Dharna and even ceased the office of Deputy Joint director of education (Secondary). The report, however, does not indicate any role being played by the petitioner. It is also evident that the matter was lingered beyond reasonable limits and staff of the school being constrained and compelled to take resort to extreme measure. 2All] Smt. Raju V. John V. Moradabad Development Authority and others 110 7. At page 53 one can find the name of petitioner at Sl. No. 26 (pp No. 53 writ paper book). It is recorded that the petitioner's appointment was approved. It also refers to the register (Register no. 14 and 11). The report, however, indicates that the aforesaid register was not available to the concerned authority. This report (at page 55 of the writ paper book) mentioned that 23 posts of Assistant Teachers were justified on the basis of student strength as per financial survey of 86-87. 8. At pp No. 57 of the writ paper book the said report exhibits the name of 17 teachers at Sl. No. 1 to 17 who have approved under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 and other 11 persons at Sl. Nos. 18 to 30 belonged to Class III and IV nonteaching staff. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that five posts of Assistant Teachers remained to be filled either from the existing staff by promotion or otherwise justified teaching work in the school. The Regional Joint Director Education, Agra vide its order dated March 25, 1998 (at pp No. 31 of the writ paper book) found only one ground of objection with respect to the case of petitioner viz. That the name of petitioner did not find mention in the working staff list of March 30, 1996 of the school signed and counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools and Accountant Officer. It will be noted that there was no other obstacle in the way of the said authority in granting approval for drawing salary under the Payment of Salaries Act. 9. Against the aforesaid order dated 25.3.98, the petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 28.3.98 (Annexure 6 to the petition) addressed to the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra. The said representation indicates that the petitioner categorically referred to various documents and filed copies thereof to show that she was appointed in the school, as claimed in the petition, and was continuously working therein. The said representation further contains the averment to the effect that the Management should pay salary to petitioner during 10.7.95 till the date of confirmation. The representation further contends categorical explanation to the effect that regular attendance register contains the name of confirmed teacher of the school and petitioner's signature obtained on separate register of temporary/unconfirmed teachers of the school. 10. The averments made in para 24 of the writ petition regarding filing of representation have not been denied in para 14 of the counter affidavit. The said paragraph 24 has been replied vide para 14 of the counter affidavit. There is, however, no denial in respect of the said representation nor the counter affidavit deals with the objection raised by the petitioner in the said representation. The defence taken by the petitioner in her representation is categorical and clear. No justification has been offered by the concerned authority before this Court for not deciding the representation for such a long time or for not accepting her explanation. 11. From the above it transpires that the objection taken in the report dated 26.12.97 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and order dated 25.3.98 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) in not approving the name of petitioner for drawing the salary under the Payment of Salaries Act was neither a final adjudication nor whatever INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 111 doubt the said officer carried has been fully explained or finally decided by the respondents. 12. Apart from what has been stated above, the case can be considered from another aspect. Once the authority has noted in its report that the appointment of petitioner is approved, the fact that the petitioner was not paid salary under Payment of Salaries Act is not significant. Payment may be made by Committee of Management from its own recourses and if salary is not paid teacher cannot be penalised for working without salary though unlawfully withheld. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.3.98 (Annexure 4 to the petition) is quashed to the extent it refers and relates to the petitioner. The petition stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to receive salary along with other approved staff and teachers. No order as to costs. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &5,0,1$/ 6,'( &5,0,1$/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 - 7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 - &ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 6KDQNHU «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 6KUL $GLW\D .XPDU