JUDGMENT D.S. SINHA, J. 1. SMT. Shikha Srivastava, the petitioner, who is a member of the cadre of Vishesh Adhinasht Shiksha Sewa of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievance of not being permitted to join her duties as Assistant Teacher at Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur, district Allahabad and non-payment of her emoluments including revised pay and certain travelling allowance etc, lawfully payable to her. 2. THE petitioner, having been selected by a Public Service Commission as Assistant Teacher (Psychology) in the cadre of Vishesh Adhinasht Shiksha Sewa of the State of Uttar Pradesh, carrying a pay scale of Rs. 400-15-475-EB-20- 575-EB-25-750, was initially appointed and posted at Government Girls. Intermediate College, Syed Raza Varanasi by means of an order dated 7th April, 1981, a true copy whereof has been annexed to the petition as Annexure-1. She joined her posting at Varanasi but by means of another order dated 22nd July, 1981 the place of her posting was changed and she was required to take over at Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur, district Allahabad. Consequently she joined at Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur, on 3rd August, 1981, where she worked during the period between 3rd August, 1981 and 8th July, 1985. During this period the petitioner taught various subjects other than Psychology until the year 1984 when the subject of Psychology was introduced. The academic session of the college commenced on 8th July, 1985 after summer vacation and the petitioner resumed her duties on that date but proceeded on long medical leave for six months with effect from 9th July, 1985. It appears that by means of an order dated 20th June, 1985 the petitioner had been transferred to Government Girls Intermediate College Sardar Nagar Gorakhpur. This order of transfer dated 20th June, 1985 was, however, cancelled by means of an other order dated 7th January, 1986 and in pursuance whereof the petitioner was supposed to resume her duties at Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur. The copy of the order dated 7th January, 1986 is annexed with the petition as Annexure-3. A copy of the order dated 7th January. 1986 was endorsed to, inter alia, the Principal Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur the respondent no. 1 also. The copy of the order dated 7th January, 1986 is annexed with the petition as Annexure-3. A copy of the order dated 7th January. 1986 was endorsed to, inter alia, the Principal Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur the respondent no. 1 also. In obediance to the order dated 7th January, 1986 the petitioner reported at Government Intermediate College, Phulpur for resuming her duties on 9th January, 1986, but the Principal of the college did not permit her to do so. 3. THE office of the Principal of Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur was held by Miss Durga Tewari who is impleaded in the instant writ petition by name as respondent no. 5 and she continues to hold the said office even today. 4. ON 9th January, 1986 itself Miss Tewari addressed a communication to Smt. Urmila Kishore, Joint Director of Education (Women), Directorate of Education, U. P. Allahabad and a true copy of this communication is on the record as Annexure C. A. 18 appended to the counter-affidavit of Miss Tewari. Through this communication Miss Tewari informed that it was not possible for her to permit the petitioner to resume her duties on two grounds: firstly, that the petitioner was a Lecturer of Psychology and no post with regard to the subject of Psychology was approved in the college; secondly, that the petitioner had committed many irregularities and had created administrative problems. The petitioner also informed the Joint Director of Education (Women) and the District Inspectress of Girls Schools, IV Circle, Allahabad about the factum of her reporting at the college and also of not being permitted to do so by means of her communications dated 9th January, 1986 and 20th January, 1986 respectively. After four days Miss Tewari addressed another communication dated 13th January, 1986 to Smt. Urmila Kishore, Joint Director of Education (Women) informing her that the services of the petitioner were not required in the college and again complaining about her activities creating administrative problems. A copy of the letter dated 13th January, 1986 was endorsed to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, IV Circle. Allahabad also and it appears that in this connection the District Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad was directed to visit the college and enquire into the matter. The District Inspectress of Girls Schools, therefore, visited the college and enquired into the matter. Allahabad also and it appears that in this connection the District Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad was directed to visit the college and enquire into the matter. The District Inspectress of Girls Schools, therefore, visited the college and enquired into the matter. She submitted her report to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools IV Circle, Allahabad which is dated 21st January, 1986 and forms part of the record of the Directorate of Education, U. P Allahabad as a paper no. 26. According to this report the stand of the Principal was that there was no post of Lecturer in Psychology and that she was not prepared to permit the Lecturer of an un-approved subject to take charge. It further transpires from the said report that the Principal had made it clear that she would not permit the petitioner to take charge so long she herself was not transferred from there. 5. ON 9th February, 1986 the petitioner again moved an application before the Joint Director of Education (Women) bringing to her notice that she had not been allowed to join her duties and requesting her to take necessary steps in that regard. The Joint Director of Education (Women) by means of a telegraphic communication dated 21st February, 1986 ordered the Principal to allow the petitioner to resume her duties and called upon her to apprise her about the taking over of the charge by the petitioner telegraphically. Confirmatory copy of this telegram was sent to the Principal by post also. A copy of the telegraphic communication dated 21st February, 1986 is on the record of the Directorate as paper no. 29. 6. INSTEAD of complying with the order of the Joint Director of Education (Women) dated 21st February, 1986 Miss Tewari addressed to the Joint Director of Education (Women) a D. O. letter dated 26th February, 1986 wherein she again reiterated her inability to permit the petitioner to join her duties and went to the extent of saying that before the resumption of the charge by the petitioner she would have to be removed. A photostat copy of the D. O. letter dated 26th February, 1986 is Annexure C. A. 22 to the counter-affidavit of Miss Tewari. A photostat copy of the D. O. letter dated 26th February, 1986 is Annexure C. A. 22 to the counter-affidavit of Miss Tewari. On 6th March, 1986 the Joint Director of Education (Women) again sent to the Principal a telegraphic communication noticing that no information about the taking over of the charge by the petitioner was received and again called for information in that regard telegraphically. Confirmatory copy of this telegram also was sent to the Principal by post and office copy thereof is available on the record of the Directorate as paper no. 32. This telegraphic communication dated 6th March, 1986 of the Joint Director of Education (Women) again went un-heeded. 7. IN these circumstances, it appears that father of the petitioner sent a representation dated 1st April, 1986 to the Additional Director of Education U. P. (Madhyamik) Allahabad, who ordered for necessary action with regard to the joining of the petitioner and also with regard to the payment of her salary and other dues. On 26th May, 1986 the Joint Director of Education (Women), therefore, sent a D. O. letter no. 2534 to Miss Tewari. A copy of this D. O. letter is to be found on the record of the Directorate as paper no. 34. By means of this D. O. letter the attention of Miss Tewari was drawn to the telegraphic communication dated 21st February, 1986 and 6th March, 1986 ordering her to allow the petitioner to take charge and it was noticed that no information in that regard was received in the Directorate. The act of Miss Tewari in not permitting the petitioner to join the post and not paying her salary was deeply regretted. It was further brought to the notice of Miss Tewari that this act of not permitting the petitioner to take charge and non-payment of her salary inspite of the orders passed by the Directorate amounted to disobediance. A grave concern over the remark of Miss Tewari contained in her D. O. letter dated 26th February, 1986 to the effect that before the petitioner was allowed to take charge she would have to be removed was also expressed and Miss Tewari was reminded that such remark amounted to clear indiscipline. A grave concern over the remark of Miss Tewari contained in her D. O. letter dated 26th February, 1986 to the effect that before the petitioner was allowed to take charge she would have to be removed was also expressed and Miss Tewari was reminded that such remark amounted to clear indiscipline. Miss Tewari was again called upon to comply with the directions of the Directorate with regard to the resumption of the charge by the petitioner and payment of her salary and inform telegraphically about the action taken by her in that regard. She was further called upon to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings for disobediance of the departmental orders and indiscipline be not initiated against her. 8. THE receipt of the aforesaid D. O. dated 26th May, 1986 has not been denied by Miss Tewari As a matter of fact the receipt of the D. O. has been acknowledged in her reply dated 26th June, 1986, a photostat copy whereof is Annexure C-25 attached to the affidavit of Miss Tewari. In her reply dated 26th June, 1986 she again reiterated her stand that the subject of Psychology was not approved in the college and the petitioner being a Lecturer of Psychology could not be permitted to take charge. The father of the petitioner again approached the Additional Director of Education U. P. (Madhyamik) Allahabad by means of his representation dated 23rd June, 1986 bringing to his notice that inspite of the orders passed by the Directorate the petitioner was neither allowed to join her duties in pursuance of the order dated 7th January, 1986 nor was she paid her salary. On this representation the Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik) passed an order directing the Joint Director of Education (Women) to call for the explanation of the Principal and also to take steps for payment of salary to the petitioner. A copy of this order is on the record of Directorate as paper no. 36. It appears that as a follow up measure the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, IV Circle, Allahabad wrote a D. O. dated 1st July, 1986 to Miss Tewari directing her to make payment of salary to the petitioner immediately. A copy of this D. O. is paper no. 42 on the record of Directorate. 9. 36. It appears that as a follow up measure the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, IV Circle, Allahabad wrote a D. O. dated 1st July, 1986 to Miss Tewari directing her to make payment of salary to the petitioner immediately. A copy of this D. O. is paper no. 42 on the record of Directorate. 9. LATERON the college re-opened for the new academic session of 1986-87 and on the date of re-opening the petitioner again appeared before the Principal of the college informing of her presence in the college. The information of her presence in the college on 8th July, 1986 was also sent to the Joint Director of Education (Women) and the said information is on the record of the Directorate vide paper no. 41. 10. IT appears that no information with regard to the joining of the petitioner and payment of her salary was received in the Directorate as such Assistant Director of Education (Vigyan) wrote a D. O. letter to the joint Director of Education (Women) dated 18th August, 1986 directing her to appraise of the explanation of the Principal and also of the position with regard to the payment of salary of the petitioner. This D.O. is on the record of Directorate as paper no. 43. Inspite of these orders and D.Os. matter did not progress and as such the Additional Director of Education (Women) wrote to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad a D. O. dated 13th October, 1986 calling upon her to inform immediately as to whether the payment of salary to the petitioner had been made and directing her to see that the payment of salary be made forthwith if it had not been made already and inform within two days. A copy of this D.O. is to be found on the record of the Directorate as paper no. 47. In pursuance of this direction the Regional Inspectress of Girls School, IV Circle Allahabad, sent a D.O. letter dated 6th November, 1986 to the District Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad directing her to get in touch with Miss Tewari and take suitable steps for getting the arrears of salary of the petitioner paid to her. She also directed the District Inspectress of Girls Schools to inform the Directorate within two days after getting the salary of the petitioner paid at once. 11. She also directed the District Inspectress of Girls Schools to inform the Directorate within two days after getting the salary of the petitioner paid at once. 11. THE grievance of the petitioner remained unredressed and as such, on 10th November, 1986, she filed the instant writ petition. 12. PROBABLY the Additional Director of Education (Women) was not aware of the filing of the instant writ petition. She, as a follow up measure to the previous orders of the Directorate, again wrote a D.O. letter no. 23634 dated 20th December, 1986 to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad directing her to get the payment of salary of the petitioner paid treating her to be absorbed in the college without any delay. A copy of this D.O. letter, which is on the record of the Directorate as paper No. 48, was sent to the Principal of the college also. Prior to the receipt of the copy of the D.O. of the Additional Director of Education (Women) dated 20th December, 1986, Miss Tewari had come to know of the filing of the writ petition and as such by her communication dated 4th December, 1986 she informed the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, IV Region, Allahabad of the filing of the writ petition and also sought her permission to file appropriate papers before this court in answer to the petition. Copies of this letter were endorsed to the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow, Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), Director of Education U. P. Allahabad and Additional Director of Education (Women). The copies of the said DO. letter of Miss Tewari dated 4th December, 1986 addressed to the Director of Education U. P. Lucknow, Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik) and the Additional Director of Education (Women) are on record of the Directorate as paper nos. 49 and 50. 13. WITHOUT waiting for necessary permission from the relevant authorities sought for through her D.O. letter December, 1986 Miss Tewari got a counter- affidavit filed in the Court purporting to be on behalf of the Principal of the college, through one Sri Amit, a routine Grade Clerk of the college on 23rd January, 1987. The petition came up before us on 19th February, 1987 and on that date Shri Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, Advocate put in his appearance on behalf of Miss Tewari. The petition came up before us on 19th February, 1987 and on that date Shri Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, Advocate put in his appearance on behalf of Miss Tewari. On that very day a rejoinder-affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in answer to the counter-affidavit of Amit filed on behalf of the Principal was also filed. From the perusal of the averments made in the petition, in the counter-affidavit of Amit filed on behalf of the Principal and the rejoinder- affidavit of the petitioner a clear picture of the matter did not emerge and we felt it necessary to look into the record of the Directorate also. We further considered it necessary to have the personal affidavit of Miss Tewari on record in view of the fact that most of the allegations with regard to the controversy in question were against Miss Tewari personally. In these circumstances we directed Miss Tewari to file her personal affidavit. We also directed the Standing Counsel of the State of U. P. to produce the record of the office of respondent nos. 2 and 3 pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 14. IN pursuance of our order dated 19th February, 1987 the counter- affidavit of Miss Tewari was filed on 10th March, 1987. On that date the learned Standing Counsel produced the record of the Directorate also and we directed him to permit learned counsel appearing for the parties to peruse the record in his presence. Eventually on 15th April, 1987 we heard Sarvsri Dhruva Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. S. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing for Miss Tewari and proceeded to dispose of the petition, with their consent, finally although the petition had not been admitted formally. 15. ON the record of the Directorate, produced by the learned Standing Counsel, we find a D.O. letter no. 30053 dated 20th February, 1987 of the Additional Director of Education (Wowen) addressed to the Principal, Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur, Allahabad, by name, that is to Miss Tewari. By this letter Miss Tewari was reminded of the various orders and directions given to her in respect of the payment of salary etc. to the petitioner and also with regard to letting the petitioner join her duties. By this letter Miss Tewari was reminded of the various orders and directions given to her in respect of the payment of salary etc. to the petitioner and also with regard to letting the petitioner join her duties. While taking notice of the writ petition of the petitioner Miss Tewari was again called upon to get the petitioner paid her salary etc. so that the instant writ petition could become infructuous. She was also warned that it would not be possible for the Directorate to get permission of the Government to contest the petition inasmuch as she herself was responsible for the filing of the instant writ petition. 16. THE claim of the petitioner for joining the post of lecturer at Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur has been resisted by Miss Tewari, as it appears from her counter-affidavit and various annexures thereto, basically on two grounds, namely: (a) that the petitioner is a lecturer of Psychology and the subject of Psychology was not the approved subject in the college; (b) that the petitioner did not work in the college after 8th July, 1985. In addition to these grounds Shri Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Miss Tewari, submitted that the various orders passed by the authorities of the Directorate of Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad with regard to the joining of the petitioner and payment of her salary were wrong and without jurisdiction. In support of the claim of the petitioner her learned counsel, Shri Dhruva Narayana, made a very simple but effective submission to the effect that the services of the petitioner having not been terminated and there being no order by any appropriate authority directing the emoluments due to her to be withheld in consequence of any lapse on her part she continued to be in employment and entitled to the salary and other benefits admissible to a member of the cadre of Vishesh Adhinasht Shiksha Sewa of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel further submitted that notwithstanding her objections in regard to the joining of the petitioner in the college Miss Tewari was obliged to permit the petitioner to join the college in view of the various orders passed by the authorities of the Directorate of Education, Uttar Pradesh which were administratively superior to her. 17. THE stand of Miss Tewari that Psychology was not a subject approved in the college is factually incorrect. 17. THE stand of Miss Tewari that Psychology was not a subject approved in the college is factually incorrect. From the averments made in the rejoinder affidavits filed in answer to the counter-affidavits of the Principal and Miss Tewari and various annexures thereto it is apparent that Psychology was one of the subjects taught in Intermediate Class of the Institution with effect from the year 1984. In the Intermediate examination of 1986 twenty-eight students appeared from the Institution and out of them twenty-seven had Psychology as one of the subjects of their examination. Obviously, these students must have studied Psychology in the Institution within the knowledge and with the consent of the relevant authorities. THE fact that 27 students of the Institution had appeared in the Intermediate Examination of 1986 with Psychology as a subject has not been disputed. THE stand in this regard in the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the Principal, is that the petitioner had started teaching Psychology in Class XI out of her own accord. This stand is wholly untenable being frivolous. Thus the contention that Psychology was not an approved subject in the College cannot be upheld. 18. THE second ground set up by Miss Tewari to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to the payment of any salary etc. on account of the fact that she did not work in the Institution after 8th July, 1985 also lacks merit. From the averments made in the petition, rejoinder-affidavits of the petitioner, annexures thereto and the record of the Directorate produced before us, it is fully established that the petitioner was, at all material times, available for rendering her service at the Institution but was illegally prevented by Miss Tewari. The contention of Sri Dwivedi that the authorities of the Directorate were in error in directing the Principal of the College to permit the petitioner to join her duties and to pay her salary and that their orders were without jurisdiction could not and cannot constitute a valid ground for Miss Tewari not to permit the petitioner to join the Institution and to withhold the payment of her salary etc. That apart, Sri Dwivedi could not demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the orders of the Directorate. 19. That apart, Sri Dwivedi could not demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the orders of the Directorate. 19. HOWEVER, it is not necessary for us to test the correctness and legality of the various orders of the authorities of the Directorate of Education directing Miss Tewari to permit the petitioner to join the Institution and also to pay her dues. Suffice it to say that the authorities which passed the various orders directing Miss Tewari to permit the petitioner to join the Institution and to pay her salary etc. were, indeed, administratively superior to Miss Tewari. She being an officer inferior and subordinate to the aforesaid authorities of the Directorate was bound to comply their orders and had no valid justifiction to disobey them. 20. IF the subordinate officers of the State are allowed to disobey the orders given to them by their superiors it would be impossible for the Government to function and the whole administration would collapse. The act of Miss Tewari in disobeying the orders of various superior authorities has rightly been viewed by the Directorate as gross indiscipline. It cannot be disputed that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated. It is also not disputed that no disciplinary action against the petitioner leading to forfeiture or withholding of her salary and other dues admissible has been taken. For so long as his employment subsists and is not terminated in accordance with law and there is no valid order forfeiting or withholding the emoluments due the employee has a right to receive salary and other dues admissible to him in accordance with law. 21. HAVING regard to the discussions made above we are of the opinion that the petitioner has been illegally prevented by Miss Tewari from joining her duties at the College and further that the payment of her salary etc. has been withheld by Miss Tewari without any valid justification. 22. IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. We command Miss Durga Tewari, the Principal, Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur, Allahabad and or her successor in the office to allow the petitioner to join as Lecturer in the College forthwith and to treat her to be a Lecturer of the College during the disputed period. 22. IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. We command Miss Durga Tewari, the Principal, Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur, Allahabad and or her successor in the office to allow the petitioner to join as Lecturer in the College forthwith and to treat her to be a Lecturer of the College during the disputed period. We further command the respondents to pay to the petitioner the entire salary and other dues payable to her for the period between 9th July, 1985 and 31st May, 1987 within two weeks of the production of a certified copy of this judgment before them and keep on paying her salary and other dues payable to her every month including for the month June, 1987 so long the employment of the petitioner does not come to an end in accordance with law. In view of the fact that unbecoming attitude coupled with gross insubordination and culpable disobedience of the orders of the administratively superior officers by Miss Durga Tewari, respondent no. 5, resulted in severe agony to the petitioner and compelled her to approach this court through this petition for redressal of her grievances she will be entitled to her costs from Miss Durga Tewari, respondent no. 5, personally, which we quantify at Rs. 1000/- only and direct to be paid within one month from today. Petition allowed.