Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Markandey Rai for the petitioner, Learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

2. As agreed by learned counsels for the parties, since the pleadings are complete, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage.

3. Though the controversy, which has engaged the attention of this Court by means of the present writ petition is very short but shows the ways and means adopted by the respondents for harassing their employees to the extent of not only putting him/her to great inconvenience but making the entire family to suffer to the extent of starvation without there being any illegality or irregularity on the part of such an employee.

4. The petitioner, Smt. Shailendra Rai, an Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School has approached this Court on account of non payment of her salary by the respondents since March’ 2005 without there being any fault on her part. A writ of mandamus has been prayed directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner since March’ 1985.

5. To start with, this Court directed the respondents to file counter-affidavit informing the Court as to why salary has not been paid to the petitioner. On 21.8.2006, the following order was passed by this Court :

“Sri C.K. Rai Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5.

Respondents may seek instruction as to why payment of salary is not being effected in favour of the petitioner. The District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra may also file his affidavit alongwith the objection of the Finance and Audit Officer in his office, referred to in the letter dated 27.4.2006

List on 31st August, 2006.”

6. When the matter again came up on 27.10.2006, a vague and incomplete reply was filed which was noticed by this Court in its order dated 27.10.2006 as under :

“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has not been served with counter-affidavit filed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra. Moreover, the affidavit filed is not accompanied with the objection of the Finance and Audit Officer referred to in the letter of the District Basic Education Officer dated 27th April, 2006, as was directed under order of this Court dated 21st August, 2006.

Let Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 file a better affidavit in strict compliance of the order of this Court dated 21st August, 2006, by 20th November, 2006.

Put up on 20th November, 2006.”

7. Noticing that there was no fault shown on the part of the petitioner for non payment of salary, but inter alia shifting of responsibility sought to be indulged by the respondents, this Court on 11.11.2007 passed the following order :

“In the present case short counter-affidavit has been filed and the same is only on behalf of respondent No. 3. In pith and substance the said short counter-affidavit supports the version of the petitioner and entire burden has been fastened upon Finance and Accounts Officer, based at the office of District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra for ensuring payment of salary to petitioner. Backdrop of the case reflects that some adjustment has been made and the reason why Finance and Accounts Officer is not ensuring payment of salary to petitioner is not all before this Court, as such it would be expedient that the version of Finance and Accounts Officer should come before this Court.

In these circumstances and in this background, Finance and Accounts Officer, Office of District Basic Education Officer indicating as to why salary is not being ensured to petitioner. While preparing counter-affidavit details furnished in short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 shall also be explained. For this purpose, learned counsel for petitioner is directed to serve a copy