A party against whom an action is brought in Court for acting illegally and arbitrarily and who is to gain by delay, cannot have the last say in the matter.

( 1 ) J.--THE petitioners claim to have been appointed in the Sri Sheo Basant Das Harijan Primary pathshala, Nasirabad Kalan, district Mau. The aforesaid School is being run by the Committee of management respondent No. 3. The petitioners pray for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners w. e. f. 1st March. 1994 and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the representations of the petitioners. Both the reliefs cannot go together.

( 2 ) THIS Court proposes to grant first relief only, namely ; to issue a direction to respondent No. 1. Director Social Welfare Department, U. P. , Lucknow to decide the representation dated 3. 8. 1995 and 1. 9. 1995, annexed as Annexures-X and XI respectively, to the present petition purported to have been filed by petitioners before said authority.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS in the instant petition contend that the then Manager of the Management committee of the School, illegally and unlawfully started interfering with their duties and unlawfully prevented them from discharging their duties in the school and Illegal stoppage of payment of salary as soon as the school came on grant-in-aid list of the Government vide G. O. letter, dated March 31. 1994 (Annexure-IV to the petition ). The Manager resorted to Illegal and hostile action against them because he wanted to make fresh appointments in Class IV cadre.

( 4 ) AT the admission stage, notice was accepted by the learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. This Court vide Its order dated 1. 8. 1996 directed for Issuance of notice to respondent No. 3 by registered post as well as personal service. All the respondents were required to file counter-affidavit within four weeks. Learned standing counsel represents respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 4. Respondent No. 3. Committee of Management is being represented by Sri Faujdar Rai, Advocate.

( 5 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents as yet in response to the notice sent by this Court.

( 6 ) IN have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C. K. Ral. brief holder of Sri Faujdar rai, counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

( 7 ) TAKING into account the fact that none of the respondents have filed counter-affidavit insplte of more than sufficient time and opportunity having been given to them by the Court and the fact that petitioners are deprived of their jobs and salary in an Illegal manner after the issuance of the government order, dated March 31, 1994 (Annexure-III to the petitioner), this Court has no option but to decide the petition finally at this stage on the basis of the record, as it stands on date.

( 8 ) ONE must realise, a party against whom an action is brought In Court for acting illegally and arbitrarily and who is to gain by delay, cannot have the last say in the matter.

( 9 ) ALONG with the report, dated 9. 7. 1992, a statement was sent by the District Social Welfare officer, Mau (respondent No. 2) to the Director, Social Welfare Department (respondent No. 1)and a copy of it has been filed as Annexure-lii to the petition--see paragraph 15 of the paper-book. The names of the petitioners are shown in the teaching staff of the school.

( 10 ) RELYING upon said unrebulted document, I direct the District Harijan and Social Welfare officer. Mau (respondent No. 2) to pay the entire arrears of the salary to the petitioners forthwith along with 12% per annum simple interest and extend all consequential benefits. In future also, the petitioners shall also be paid salary month by month along with other teachers of the institution.

( 11 ) THE respondent No. 4 Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Mau, is further directed to lodge a First information Report against the then Manager of the School for illegal withholding of salary of the petitioners-for criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of funds, unauthori