Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (Oral):— A very innocuous prayer has been made in this writ petition for directing the respondents to pay the arrears of the salary of the petitioner with effect from April, 2012 to September, 2012 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date when the same was due to him till the actual date of payment.
2. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was working as Lecturer in Chemistry in G.A.V Senior Secondary School, Kangra, which was 95% added recognized private school till the time it was taken over by the respondents-State. These schools were decided to be taken over vide policy dated 20.07.2011 (for short ‘policy’) and the State actually took over these schools with effect from 01.04.2012
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner actually worked during the aforesaid period, but the writ petition is opposed by the respondents mainly on the ground that grant-in-aid beyond 31.03.2012 i.e from 01.04.2012 till joining the government service is admissible only to those aided schools taken over employees, who joined the H.P State Government service pursuant to taking over their services by the State Government as per the provisions of the taking over policy, whereas, the petitioner has not joined the government service pursuant to taking over given to him as per the commitment given in the affidavit filed by him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
5. As already observed above, there is no dispute that the petitioner has actually worked for the period for which he is claiming his salary and, therefore, one is at a loss to understand as to what loss has been caused to the respondents so as to entitle them to withhold the salary of the petitioner for the period in question. That apart, in case the petitioner has not joined or is not willing to join the government service, he cannot be compelled to join the same and the consequences for not joining would follow in accordance with law, but then that cannot be a ground to deny the salary for the petitioner for which period the petitioner has actually worked.
6. As regards the affidavit upon which much reliance is being placed by the respondents, I really do not find any condition therein which could give a right to the respondents to withhold the salary of the petitioner for the period he actually worked. Even if, there would have been such a condition, I have no hesitation to say that the same would have been violative of the provisions of the Constitution.
7. Notably the respondents herein are none other than the functionaries of the State who are expected to function like a model employer. A model employer is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected candour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit its employees and take advantage of their helplessness and misery. The conduct of the respondents falls short of expectation of a model employer.
8. Having said so, I find merit in this petition. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner his salary with effect from April, 2012 to September, 2012 within a period of three months, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date when the salary was due till the actual date of payment made to the petitioner.
9. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs.