JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Spinning & Weaving) by the Director of Social Welfare vide Order No. 10309 dated March 15, 1958. Thereafter, on account of decentralisation of powers the services of the petitioner were transferred from Social Welfare Department to Panchayat Samiti Bali District Pali vide order No. 25123 dated January 15, 1960. At that point of time, the petitioner was getting the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 60,130/-. Thus, the petitioner became an employee of the Panchayat Samiti, Bali and later on he was confirmed on the post of Instructor with effect form October 2, 1959 vide Resolution No. 5 (Ex. 3) dated September 3, 1970. In para 4 of the writ petition, it has been stated that as and when the pay scales were revised the petitioner's pay was accordingly revised upto 1966. In para 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that in the year 1969, the pay scales were revised and an such, the petitioner became entitled to be fixed in the revised pay scales. The petitioner made representations to respondent No. 3 and 4 calling upon them to take up the matter of fixation of the petitioner in the revised pay scales. Respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to respondent No. 4 calling upon him to show as to whether the petitioner and two other persons who are working in the Panchayat Samiti are on the sanctioned post or not. It is very surprising that how this letter (Ex. 4) was addressed specially when vide Ex. 3, the petitioner was confirmed. The petitioner submits that this shows the bias on the part of the authorities concerned against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the authorities have not cared to look into the service record of the petitioner and the teachers are dealt with in a way which is not expected from the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that number of the teachers are facing hardship at the ministerial staff and no one is looking after their interests. In para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he made a representation to the Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on December 11,1973 vide Ex. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that number of the teachers are facing hardship at the ministerial staff and no one is looking after their interests. In para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he made a representation to the Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on December 11,1973 vide Ex. 5. In para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has further submitted that the Accounts Officer Social welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide its letter dated October 29, 1975 addressed to Accounts Officer of Panchayat Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur brought out a new story that Basic School and Craft Teachers which were under the control of non-petitioner No. 4 were transferred to the Eduction Department and vide Govt Circular, it was made clear that the respective Departments should take necessary action with regard to creation of posts through their head of the Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed with reference to his representation dated November 19, 1975 that his matter is receiving consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, Development Department (Administration-II) and the petitioner was expected to do further correspondence with him. Thereafter, on July 19, 1976, the petitioner submitted his further representation to respondent No. 3 with regard to his fixation of salary and grant of annual grade increments but the representations were not disposed of since the petitioner has not been given annual grade increments and his salary has also not been revised after 1966, the petitioner served a notice for Demand of Justice on August 15, 1982 and upon the aforesaid notice, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter No. 3281 dated August 19, 1982 to the Assistant Accounts Officer, Rural Development Department and Panchayat Depa Department. Government of Rajasthan, ,Jaipur requesting him to expedite the matter regarding fixation of petitioner's pay at an early date. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs : "It is, therefore, prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction : 1. The respondents be directed to make the fixation of the petitioner's pay in the pay scales of 1969 and 1970 and to make the payment of arrears; 2. That the respondents be further directed to accord annual grade increments since 1971 and to make the payment of arrears ; 3. That the petitioner be also awarded interest on the arrears of salary ; 4. That the respondents be further directed to accord annual grade increments since 1971 and to make the payment of arrears ; 3. That the petitioner be also awarded interest on the arrears of salary ; 4. Any other appropriate relief to which the petitioner is found to be entitled may kindly be granted. 5. Petition be accepted with costs." 2. On behalf of the respondents, no reply has been filed Mr. R. P. Dave, learned Deputy Government Advocate orally submits that vide R. D. D. letter No. 161/10 Lekha Hasta/78-9/12504 dated June 14, 1979, the annual grade increments have been granted to the petitioner and all the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner have been granted. He further submits that the fixation statements of the petitioner in the pay scales of 1969 and 1976 have been sanctioned and in view of this, the writ petition has become in fructuous and so, it should be decided finally at this stage. 3. I have heard Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. P. Dave, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate. 4. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not received any payment so far. He further submits that if the submissions made by the learned Deputy Government Advocate are taken on its face value, even then it is very clear that the petitioner will not be able to get any relief at the hands of the respondents unless undesired methods are adopted. He submits that according to Mr. Dave the annual grade increments have been sanctioned in 1979 and the fixation statement has also been prepared, then what is the reason for the non-payment of the amount due to the petitioner. According to Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, if the wages are not paid or the payment is delayed then the employer is bound to pay compensation and which may go upto 10 times. He submits that the principles of payment of compensation which have been laid down in the Payment of Wages Act and other welfare laws should be applied in the instant case. He submits that the principles of payment of compensation which have been laid down in the Payment of Wages Act and other welfare laws should be applied in the instant case. He further submits that if the courts are reluctant in passing the orders against the State in the matter of payment of compensation, the whole object of paying the due wages on the due dates or within a reasonable time will be frustrated. He submits that the petitioner is only an illustration but hundred of teachers are facing the same trouble and they have to do a lot which is not desired to get the due payment. I am not inclined to accept the contentions of both the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Even if we assume as has been submitted by Mr. R. P. Dave, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate that the fixation statements have been prepared and the annual grade increments have been sanctioned in 1979, I fail to understand that what is the difficulty in making the payment. It scows that something is wrong somewhere and a honest teacher cannot be expected to do a thing which may kill his conscience. The pay scales have been revised in 1969 and 1976 and even upto this date, the revised pay scales have not been granted to a poor teacher of the Primary School. We are living in a democratic society and the social justice requires ( ....... .. .... ) laid down in the Constitution of India. The abstract Law does not impart justice in the socio economic conditions prevalent in the country, it is the application of rule of law which imparts justice. The matter has to he considered in this aspect. We can understand the red-tapism which is prevalent in the Government and we can take note of it and we will have to see that the red-tapism which is prevalent is reduced to the minimum. The pay scales have been reposed in the year 1969. Can a teacher not expect that even within a period of two years, his fixation shall be made and he shall be paid the salary in accordance with the revised pay scales. Since the year 1971, the petitioner is not getting the annual grade increments because his salary has not been fixed in the revised pay scales of 1969. Can a teacher not expect that even within a period of two years, his fixation shall be made and he shall be paid the salary in accordance with the revised pay scales. Since the year 1971, the petitioner is not getting the annual grade increments because his salary has not been fixed in the revised pay scales of 1969. The second revision of pay scales has taken place in the year 1976 and even upto this date, the petitioner has not been paid his due revised salary and annual grade increments. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the annual grade increments have been sanctioned in the year 1979 and the fixation statements have been prepared cannot be considered at all as it shows that the administrative machinery is not working properly and is not taking action against those who are delaying the petty means of a poor teacher of a school. Can it be not expected from the social welfare society that the poor teacher will get its dues within a reasonable time. We need radical approach in dealing with the law. A judge should not be a status qua service time bureaucrat judge but the judge should be a constitutional Statesman and should be capable of dealing with the problems of the society. Law should be applied in a way so that the objects laid down in our constitution, can be achieved. 6. It is the fundamental right of every employee to get his wages on the due dates If the wages are not paid, it will lead to the starvation and it cannot be expected from the starving teacher that he will lay down the foundation of the country in a way which is expected from him. With this approach in mind, I will have to deal with the instant case. 7. The preamble of the Constitution and directive principles are the guide and we will have to take the assistance, may be in a directive or mandatory forum, to interpret the law and to apply it in the present circumstances. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation should be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the same principles should be applied in this case. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation should be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the same principles should be applied in this case. I will not like to discuss the matter in detail whether the principles of Payment of Wages Act can be applied in the instant case or not as Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has not sought any relief in that direction, in his writ petition and has also not made out a case in the plaint. However, I will like to see that the petitioner is compensated at least in part. The petitioner has prayed that the interest should be awaited. Looking to the red-tapism, two years' time which can be considered the maximum time as a grace period for the purpose of preparation of the fixation statements and processing thereof, at the most the petitioner shall be entitled to get 12% interest on his due salary on every due date after giving two years' grace period. The respondents are directed to make the fixation of the petitioner's pay in the revised pay scales of 1969 and 1976 and to make the payment of the arrears within a period of four months from today. The respondents are further directed to accord annual grade increments and to make the payment of the arrears within four months from today. The respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 12% p. a. on the arrears of the revised salary of the petitioner in a way as directed and discussed above. The respondent are directed to submit the compliance report within five months from today. 8. After dictation of this part of the judgment, Mr. R.P. Dave learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the respondents are not responsible for the delayed payment and the Officers who have delayed the matter should be held responsible for the same. He further submits that a direction for the payment of interest should not be made against the State Government but should be made against the Officers who are responsible for delaying the payment. I agree in part with the submission made by the learned Deputy Govt Advocate that the Officers of the State are really responsible for the loss caused to the petitioner. This Court cannot direct the Officers to make the payment of the interest. I agree in part with the submission made by the learned Deputy Govt Advocate that the Officers of the State are really responsible for the loss caused to the petitioner. This Court cannot direct the Officers to make the payment of the interest. It is for the State Government to fix up the responsibility and to recover the amount of interest from the Officer who are responsible for the inordinate delay in the payment of the revised salary of the petitioner. The State Government will be at liberty to recover the amount of the interest from the Officers responsible. It is expected from the respondents that they should examine the matter and should fix up the responsibility and to take necessary disciplinary action against the officers responsible. This will have the statutory effect on the administration and poor persons like the petitioner would get the relief in future if the liability is fixed on the defaulting officers. Such an action is bound to improve the image of the administration. 9. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent are directed to pay to the petitioner Rs. 200/- as costs of the litigation. *******