A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) THE Committee of Management/respondent No. 3 is served by Dasti notice as well as r. P. A. D. through registry vide office report dated 7. 2. 2001. Notice will be deemed to have been served by registered post under Chapter VIII, Rule 2, Explanation II, Rules of the Court. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto has also come on record. ( 3 ) THIS petition is being finally decided at this stage as all the respondents have been adequately given suitable opportunity to contest the case. ( 4 ) THE Baptist Higher Secondary School, Agra (called school) is a recognised institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (called as act No. 22 of 1921 ). ( 5 ) IT was recognised as Higher Secondary School (minority school) vide order dated 25. 2. 84 by the U. P. Board. The school came on grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The institution came under the purview of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of salaries of Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971 with effect from 1. 4. 96 which became applicable to it. ( 6 ) THE petitioner passed M. Sc. (Chemistry), M. Phil. (Chemistry) and B. Ed. and, being fully qualified and eligible to the post advertised in the newspaper amar Ujala by the Management of the school for making appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school. In pursuance to her application, she was issued interview letter dated 26. 6. 95. The aforesaid averments, contained from paras I to 16, have not been denied in the counter-affidavit. According to the petitioner, she joined her duties as Assistant Teacher in the school on July 10, 1995. She was confirmed vide Management order, communicated through letter dated May 30, 1997 in the school and filed certain certificates dated 22. 4. 96 and 24. 1. 98 (Annexure 2 to the petition ). ( 7 ) BEFORE and after the school came under grant-in-aid list the certain formalities were to be observed. The concerned educational authority initiated process, which included financial survey and obtaining certain reports regarding actual working staff of the school on relevant date. Vide report dated 26. 12. 4. 96 and 24. 1. 98 (Annexure 2 to the petition ). ( 7 ) BEFORE and after the school came under grant-in-aid list the certain formalities were to be observed. The concerned educational authority initiated process, which included financial survey and obtaining certain reports regarding actual working staff of the school on relevant date. Vide report dated 26. 12. 97, the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra recommended payment of salary with respect to other teachers and staff of the school, the said report did not recommend for salary being paid under the Payment of Salaries Act to the petitioner. The aforesaid report shows that the teachers of the school had resorted to Dharna and even ceased the office of deputy Joint Director of Education (Secondary ). The report, however, does not indicate any role being played by the petitioner. It is also evident that the matter was lingered beyond reasonable limits and staff of the school being constrained and compelled to take resort to extreme measure. ( 8 ) AT page 53 one can find the name of petitioner at SI. No. 26 (at P. No. 53 writ paper book ). It is recorded that the petitioners appointment was approved. It also refers to the register (Register nos. 14 and 11 ). The report, however, indicates that the aforesaid register was not available to the concerned authority. This report (at page 55 of the writ paper book) mentioned that 23 posts of Assistant Teachers were justified on the basis of students strength as per financial survey of 86-87. ( 9 ) AT p. No. 57 of the writ paper book the said report exhibits the name of 17 teachers at Sl. Nos. I to 17 who were approved under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 and other 11 persons at Sl. Nos. 18 to 30 belonged to Classes HI and IV non-teaching staff. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that five posts of Assistant Teachers remained to be filled either from the existing staff by promotion or otherwise justified teaching work in the school. The Regional Joint Director education, Agra vide its order dated March 25, 1998 (at p. No. 31 of the writ paper book) found only one ground of objection with respect to the case of petitioner viz. The Regional Joint Director education, Agra vide its order dated March 25, 1998 (at p. No. 31 of the writ paper book) found only one ground of objection with respect to the case of petitioner viz. that the name of petitioner did not find mention in the working staff list of March 30, 1996 of the school signed and counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools and Accountant Officer. It will be noted that there was no other obstacle in the way of the said authority in granting approval for drawing salary under the Payment of Salaries Act. ( 10 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 25. 3. 98, the petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 28. 3. 98 (Annexure 6 to the petition) addressed to the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra. The said representation indicates that the petitioner categorically referred to various documents and filed copies thereof to show that she was appointed in the school, as claimed in the petition, and was continuously working therein. The said representation further contains the averment to the effect that the Management should pay salary to petitioner during 10. 7. 95 till the date of confirmation. The representation further contends categorical explanation to the effect that regular attendance register contains the name of confirmed teacher of the school and petitioners signature obtained on separate register of temporary/unconfirmed teachers of the school. ( 11 ) THE averments made in para 24 of the writ petition regarding filing of representation have not been denied in para 14 of the counter-affidavit. The said paragraph 24 has been replied vide para 14 of the counter-affidavit. There is, however, no denial in respect of the said representation nor the counter-affidavit deals with the objection raised by the petitioner in the said representation. The defence taken by the petitioner in her representation is categorical and clear. No justification has been offered by the concerned authority before this Court for not deciding the representation for such a long time or for not accepting her explanation. ( 12 ) FROM the above it transpires that the objection taken in the report dated 26. 12. 97 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and order dated 25. 3. No justification has been offered by the concerned authority before this Court for not deciding the representation for such a long time or for not accepting her explanation. ( 12 ) FROM the above it transpires that the objection taken in the report dated 26. 12. 97 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and order dated 25. 3. 98 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) in not approving the name of petitioner for drawing the salary under the Payment of Salaries Act was neither a final adjudication nor whatever doubt the said officer carried has been fully explained or finally decided by the respondents. ( 13 ) APART from what has been stated above, the case can be considered from another aspect. Once the authority has noted in its report that the appointment of petitioner is approved, the fact that the petitioner was not paid salary under! Payment of Salaries Act is not significant. Payment may be made by Committee of Management from its own resources and if salary is not paid, teacher cannot be penalised for working without salary-though unlawfully withheld. ( 14 ) IN view of the above, the impugned order dated 25. 3. 98 (Annexure 4 to the petition) is quashed to the extent it refers and relates to the petitioner. The petition stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to receive salary alongwith other approved staff and teachers. ( 15 ) NO order as costs. .