M.C. Jain, J.
1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order dated 29.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 which is Annexure-J to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the Management Committee of Bal Vidyalaya, Naya Pura (Stanley Road), Allahabad. Respondent No. 1 is the District Social Welfare Officer, Allahabad and respondent No. 2 Smt. Krishna Srivastava was a teacher in the school managed by the petitioner. The petitioner runs two primary schools, one at Naya Pura, Allahabad and the other known as Kanya Pathshala, Ramman Ka Pura, Allahabad. The Manager of both the schools is one and the same, namely. Shri Rishi Ram. The schools receive grant-in-aid from the Government through respondent No. 1. By order dated 11.12.1996, respondent No. 2 had been transferred by the petitioner from Naya Pura to Kanya Pathshala, Ramman Ka Pura, Allahabad. She challenged her transfer by means of Writ Petition No. 41225 of 1996 which was finally disposed of on 19.12.1996 with a direction that the petitioner would make representation to respondent No. 1 who shall dispose of the same within two weeks. When she represented to respondent No. 1, the latter directed the petitioner on 16.1.1997 to decide the matter at its own level. The petitioner then rejected the representation of respondent No. 2 and directed her to join at the transferred institution but she did not
comply with the same. She made an application in Writ Petition No. 41225 of 1996 for recall of the order dated 19.12.1996 and with the prayer that the petition be decided on merits. A contempt petition was also made by her. It was directed by the Court on 19.8.1997 that it was open to her to represent before the Committee of Management and on her such representation, the committee would decide the matter within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, but she did not file any representation before the Committee of Management. Because of this order, respondent No. 1 was under pressure to pass an order dated 15.7.1997, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, cancelling the transfer order of respondent No. 2 and directing the petitioner to permit her to Join at her post. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 passed the complained order dated 29.1.1998 directing the petitioner to pay the salary of respondent No. 2 for the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997 within ten days. Admittedly, she was permitted to join on 23.7.1997. The contention of petitioner is that respondent No. 2 did not work for the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997 and as such, she was not entitled to salary for this period on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. She also did not apply for any leave for this period.
3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The case of respondent No. 2 is that her transfer order was wholly illegal. She was not permitted to work during the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997 and had been unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 29.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 was only a consequential order of the earlier order dated 15.7.1997 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the transfer order dated 11.12.1996 passed in respect of respondent No. 2 was cancelled as it was against the Government order.
4. I have heard Sri S. C. Kushwaha for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri A.K. Goyal for respondent No. 2.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner receives grant-in-aid from the Government through respondent No. 1. It is apparent that the transfer of respondent No. 2 from one institution to the other by the petitioner by order dated 11.12.1996 was illegal and it was for this reason that it came to be cancelled by respondent No. 1. She was permitted to join her duty only on 23.7.1997. Her representation made to respondent No. 1 earlier and referred to the petitioner was rejected by it (petitioner). Thus, the circumstances were created by the petitioner, as a result of which she could not work during the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997. She cannot be deprived of the salary for the said period on the principle ‘no work no pay’ because of such a situation illegally created by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 is not to be blamed therefor. She had all through been running from pillar to post and had even filed the writ petition also to challenge the illegal act of the petitioner. It came to be revealed by the parties during the course of the arguments that by now she has retired. Anyway, she is entitled to receive her salary and allowance for the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997. The attempt of the petitioner to deprive her of the same and filing of this writ petition to achieve this purpose is mala fide, untenable and unfounded. In all fairness, the petitioner should pay the salary of respondent No. 2 for the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997. The petitioner shall be directed to make payment of the salary of respondent No. 2 for the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997 within one month from today.
6. In the result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to make payment of the salary of the respondent No. 2 for the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997 within one month from today. There would be no order as to costs.