Naresh Kumar vs Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others

Vikram Nath, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition claiming salary for the period from August, 1999 to July, 2000 and also seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services on the vacant post of driver in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor (respondent No. 3).

I have heard Sri D.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner was appointed on daily wages by the Secretary of Zila Sakcharta Samiti, Bijnor vide order dated 3.3.1997, as a driver on daily wage to continue till his services are required in the Sakcharta Abhiyan. According to the petitioner he continued to work till May, 2001 when his services were dispensed with as the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court claiming the above mentioned relief and this Court had passed an interim order dated 8.5.2001, directing the respondent No. 3 the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor to pay the salary to the petitioner for a period of one year from May, 1999 to July, 2000.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the meeting dated 30.12.2000 of Zila Sakcharta Samiti in which apparently the District Inspector of Schools was also present as his consent/agreement was recorded by the District Magistrate who is the President of the said Samiti that for the period of one year for which the jeep was used by the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor, the liability for payment of salary/wages will be of the District Inspector of Schools and he shall ensure payment of the same.

It is strange that despite the resolution dated 30.12.2000 (Annexure3 to the petition) and also the interim direction issued by this Court on 8.5.2001, the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor had not complied with the same and the petitioner has not been paid the salary for the said period and in the counter affidavit the District Inspector of Schools has taken stand that it is not his responsibility to make payment to the petitioner but it is the responsibility of the District Magistrate (respondent No. 2). In the counter affidavit it is not disputed that the petitioner has worked for the period for which he is claiming salary. This is clear harassment of the petitioner and he was compelled him to file this petition for payment of the wages which he had admittedly earned by working.

The stand taken by the District Inspector of Schools does not appear to be correct stand. However, as the appointment was made by the Secretary of the Zila Sakcharta Samiti, Bijnor and the President of the said Samiti is the District Magistrate, Bijnor it is directed that from the date of production of certified copy of this order the payment of wages/due salary shall be given to the petitioner within period of three weeks and in case such payment is not made by the District Magistrate it would be open to the petitioner to file an application before this Court seeking further direction for compliance which may result into a serious view being taken by this Court against the erring officers.

With regard to the next prayer regarding regularization, the same cannot be awarded as the Government has framed the Rules with that regard. In case the petitioner falls within the criteria laid down under the Rules his case would be appropriately considered. It is further provided that if there is still need of a driver in the Sakcharta Abhiyan the petitioner will be considered for the same.

Since the petitioner is being made to run from pillar to post and also the petitioner had to file this petition before this Court and in spite of a direction of this Court he has not been paid the salary/wages which are legally payable by the respondents, the District Magistrate will also pay simple interest at the rate of 10% on the amount due to the petitioner from the date it fall due till the date of payment.

With the aforesaid observations this petition is partly allowed as above.