JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. The management and school are before this Court as petitioners challenging order passed by the respondent No.1-Education Officer, whereby the said respondent has directed the petitioners to pay salary to the respondent No.2 for the entire period of almost one academic year, during which the respondent No.2 did not attend duties in petitioner No.1-School. The respondent No.1 has come to the conclusion that the petitioners ought to have treated his absence as being on medical leave and since she had leave to her credit, she was entitled to salary for the said period.

4. The respondent No.2 was working as an Assistant Teacher with the petitioner No.1-School, which is an unaided minority institution. The respondent No.2 was in employment of the petitioners since the year 1994. The material placed on record shows that the respondent No.2 had remained absent without prior permission between 03/02/2004 and 07/02/2004 and in this context, she had submitted an undertaking on 09/08/2004 that henceforth she would obtain permission for l