JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to release payment of their pay & salary plus admissible allowances withheld by them for the period from 1.8.91 to 28.7.1993 along with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. besides compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- for mental torture. 2. Facts relevant for the purpose of the present controversy are thus. Admittedly, the petitioners (Murarilal Gaur & Kishorilal Jangid) holding the post of Assistant Teachers in Govt. Secondary School, Sikari, were temporarily posted in the office of the District Education Officer, Dausa (respondent No. 3) where they joined on 13.5.91 but relieved to join respondent No.3's office by an order dated 31.5.91 (Ann. 1) whereafter they were relieved by the respondent No. 3 by order dated 14.8.91 (Ann. 2) so as to resume back on their duties at Govt. Sr. Secondary School Sikari where they joined on 15.8.91, is apparent from a letter dated 29.2.92 (Ann. 3) issued by the Vice Principal of the School. 3. The dispute crept in while the petitioner service transferred by order dated 14.8.91 (Ann. 4) passed by respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioners that since they were relieved on 28.7.93 they joined their duties on transfer posting on 29.7.93, as is evident from their joining reports (Ann. 5 & 6). It is also the case of the petitioners that they also tried to report for joining duties at the places of their transfer posting but they were not allowed to do so because they were not relieved from Sikari School to join Dhulkot & Manpur Schools, where they joined on relieving order having been passed by the respondent No. 3 who issued order dated 24.7.93 directing the Sikari School to relieve them w.e.f. 28.7.93 as is evident from their relieving order dated 28.7.93 (Ann. 7). 4. Only grievance raised by the petitioners is that despite their having remained on duty in Sikari School till they were relieved on 28.7.93 from the date of their transfer order dated 14.8.91, the respondents have withheld their regular salary plus admissible allowances by illegally not paying it. Hence, this writ petition. 5. A show cause notice was issued by this Court on 19.7.96 as to why this petitions be not admitted. The respondents submitted their reply to the show cause notice. Hence, this writ petition. 5. A show cause notice was issued by this Court on 19.7.96 as to why this petitions be not admitted. The respondents submitted their reply to the show cause notice. During the course of arguments it has been reiterated that the petitioners were not working at Govt. School Sikari for the period from 1.9.91 to 27.7.93, nor they tiled any such proof as to their presence either at Sikari or in other school or office, and therefore, for the intervening period they remained absent and were not entitled to any such pay and allowance. The respondents have admitted that the petitioners had challenged their transfer order dated 14.8.91 before the Civil Judge (JD) Sikari by way of a civil suit which was dismissed by order dated 3.7.1995. 6. A careful perusal of the reply of the respondents to the writ petition makes it clear that on the one hand the respondents stated that the petitioner did not work at the Govt. School Sikari from 1.9.91 to 27.7.1993 and on the other hand in para 4 of the reply it has been stated that the petitioners gave their presence in Sikari School on 15.8.1991 and not on 16.8.91. Much stress was laid that firstly the petitioners joined on 15.8.91 and then attended on 27.7.93 but during intervening period they remained absent; and on 27.7.93 they were relieved to join their duties on 28.7.93 at the place of their transfer posting viz, Dhulkot & Manpur. 7. Rejoinder to the reply also has been filed by the petitioners along with supporting documents (Ann. 14 & 15), specifically stating therein that after joining their duties on 15.8.91 they were attending their duties regularly as is evident from a certificate issued by Vice Principal (Controlling Officer) (Ann. 15). Circular dated 25.9.90 (Ann. 14) has been produced on record to show that where the school is run in two shifts (Pari), 1st shift would be under the charge of the Vice Principal to whom the petitioners submitted their joining report in Sikari School and under whose control they were performing their works. 8. Further as is evident from an order dated 19.8.91 (Ann. 14) has been produced on record to show that where the school is run in two shifts (Pari), 1st shift would be under the charge of the Vice Principal to whom the petitioners submitted their joining report in Sikari School and under whose control they were performing their works. 8. Further as is evident from an order dated 19.8.91 (Ann. 16) by the Civil Judge (JD) Sikrai, in civil suit challenging the transfer orders of the petitioners, status quo was ordered by the Civil Court to be maintained in favour of the petitioner, obviously the respondents did not relieve them pursuant to the transfer orders dated 14.8.91 (Ann. 4) and they were relieved by the respondent No. 4 on 28.7.93 by order (Ann. 7), itself, which was passed pursuant to the order dated 24.7.93 of the respondent No. 3 and this order was obviously passed by the respondents in compliance of the Court order dated 11.2.93 (Ann. 17) in a appeal preferred before the District Judge Dausa Camp at Bandikui. Form the appellate court's order dated 112.93 (Ann. 17) it is crystal clear that on 11.2.93 the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer Dausa) were present before the Court where the respondent No. 3 assured the Court to issue orders relieving the petitioners. 9. Be that as it may, upon the status quo orders of the civil court and the appellate court orders, the petitioner were initially not relieved not only till 19.8.91 but also till such orders were passed by the respondents on 28.7.93 in compliance with order of the appellate court dated 11.2.93, as is established on record, referred to above. 9. Be that as it may, upon the status quo orders of the civil court and the appellate court orders, the petitioner were initially not relieved not only till 19.8.91 but also till such orders were passed by the respondents on 28.7.93 in compliance with order of the appellate court dated 11.2.93, as is established on record, referred to above. Moreover, once it stands admitted in para 7 of the reply that until and unless the petitioners as a result of their transfers were relieved from the Government School, Sikrai, they could not have joined at the place where they were transferred by order dated 14.8.91, then naturally the petitioners had no option but to have regularly performed their duties at Sikrai School, because of the reason of the respondents having failed to issue relieving orders on the transfer of the petitioners which admittedly were issued only on 28.7.93 before which no such relieving orders were issued or served on the petitioners, nor it is the case of the respondents that despite their having passed relieving orders, the petitioners did not join the transferred place of posting viz., Dhulkot & Manpur nor it is the case of the respondents that since the petitioners were allegedly not working either at Sikrai School or Dhulkot & Manpur, they were issued any memo asking or explanation or assigning reasons for their alleged absence for the intervening period as is their case in the reply. 10. Had the petitioner remained absent from duty upon their transfers either at Sikrai or Dhulkot & Manpur, it is really surprisingly enough, as to what prevented the respondents to have initiated any disciplinary action for the allegation of wilful absence from duty for the period in question or immediately after their alleged absence. Having failed to do so, rather on the contrary, from the certificate (Ann. 8 to 12) issued by the respondents it stands established that the petitioners examined posted at Sikrai School and they were not believed from Sikrai School and they attended the office of the respondents No. 3 with reference to the education programme and discussion as a representative Teachers of the Sikrai School on respective dates stated in those certificates, this Court has no option except to reasonably presume that the petitioners continue to regularly. work and attend their performance of duty as Teachers at Sikrai School from 15.8.91 to 28.7.93 on which date they were relieved from Sikrai School that two pursuant to the Civil Court & appellate Court's orders, referred to above, and in this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be held or presumed to have remained absent for this period in question with a view to deprive them of their admissible salary alongwith allowances thereon. 11. I find no merit in the allegations of the respondents as to the absence on the part of the petitioners as stated in their reply to the writ petitions. In view of the circumstances established on record, no question of facts being of dispatched nature are involved, inasmuch as under the garb of allegation of absence from duty to the period, the respondents had no authroity to either withhold their salary for that period or to keep silence without resolving the issue resulting into causing delay in retiral benefits to the petitioners also. It is made clear that civil suit of the petitioners was not dismissed but returned by the Civil Court for proper presentation of the suit before the appropriate authority or the court of law, as is evident from order dated 3.7.95 (Ann. 13) and therefore, it is wrong on the part of the respondents to have stated that the civil suit was dismissed. 12. That apart from the transfer order dated 14.8.91 (Ann. 4) it is apparent that it would have become effective only upon issuing relieving orders by the Principal of the School Sikrai which admittedly could not have been passed till 28.7.93 and thus the respondent No. 4 Principal ought not to have withheld the salary of the petitioners who were attending their regular duties in the School Sikrai from 15.8.91 till they were relieved on 28.7.93 to join their duties at Dhulkot & Manpur respectively. No document or affidavit of the Principal of the School Sikrai has been filed to support the allegation of absence for the period in question made against the petitioners, whereas contrarily from the certificates (Ann. 8 to 12) produced by the petitioners, which were undoubtedly issued by the respondent No. 3, it stands established that the petitioners were continuing at School Sikrai, and that they were not believed therefrom. 13. 8 to 12) produced by the petitioners, which were undoubtedly issued by the respondent No. 3, it stands established that the petitioners were continuing at School Sikrai, and that they were not believed therefrom. 13. I must hasten to say that in litigations challenging the transfers, it is open that the State Government or its instrumentality used to complex the matter by acting without any authority of law, as has happened in the present case, obviously because of the aggrieved transferred employee having approached the court of law. Once the civil court has issue orders to maintain the status quo and till then no relieving orders on transfer are issued, the transferred employee must be allowed to continue at works as if he were not transferred and should not be deprived of his salary and remuneration under one pretext or the other without any justification, and the officers of the State Government should not indulge in frustrating the cause of the justice rendered by the Courts of law in issuing orders to maintaining status quo or staying the operation of transfer orders. Such a practice deserves to be deprecated by the instrumentality of the Welfare State in strongest terms. The instrumentality of the State is expected to act fairly and within the authority of law. It is also often seen that as soon as the employee used to challenge the transfer, the instrumentality of the State used to issue relieving order to the back of the employee notwithstanding they proceeded on leave or that they are not served with such relieving order and they used to treat them absent from duty, whereas mearly because transfer orders are issued and relieving orders are issued on such transfer, contemporaneously service of the transfer as well as relieving orders upon the incumbent employee must also be proved during the pendency of litigation by way of proper pleadings and evidence on record. Having failed to do so, the respondents cannot be allowed to take somersault or to raise one pretext or the other that too without any justification on record. 14. Having failed to do so, the respondents cannot be allowed to take somersault or to raise one pretext or the other that too without any justification on record. 14. Bearing in mind to circumstances proved on record I am of the considered opinion that the action on the part of the respondents in having withheld salary of the period from 16.8.91 to 28.7.93 without any justification on record, is violative of Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the respondents have acted in case of the present petitioners without authority of law and in any arbitrary manner, which warrants invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Withholding of salary for the intervening period in question has further resulted in delaying the retiral and pensionary benefits without any justification, for which the respondents had no authority, and consequently, in my considered opinion, the petitioners are also entitled to consequently, in my considered opinion, the petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum not only on the withheld salary and allowances but also on the withheld retiral and pensionary payments in arrears from the date of their accrual, if any. 15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay withheld salary and allowances of the petitioners for the period from 1.8.91 to 28.7.1993 and also release their retiral & pensionary benefits in arrears , if any along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the dates of their accrual of salary and pensionary benefits, till the payment thereof and all this exercise on compliance with these directions under this judgment be made within two months from today. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******