DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was working as a Class IV employee in the Digambar Jain College, Baraut, Baghpat (hereinafter referred to as the college) has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondents to pay salary and not to interfere with his working as a Class IV employee in the College. At the time of hearing of the petition, the petitioner has confined his relief for payment of salary from 1st January, 2001 to 2nd January, 2003. ( 2 ) THE College is a Post-Graduate College which is affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University (hereinafter referred to as the university ). The case taken by the petitioner is that after his appointment he was getting his salary regularly but when a new Principal of the College joined the College, he started harassing the petitioner and became so annoyed that he directed that payment of salary to the petitioner be stopped from February, 2001. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal of the College mentioning therein that he had joined as Principal of the College on 26th May, 1993 and after summer vacation on 12th July, 2000, he came to know that the petitioner was continuously absent but he was getting his salary. He, therefore, wrote letters to the various authorities. The District Inspector of Schools, Meerut conducted an inquiry and in his communication dated 13th January, 2001 sent to the Joint Director of Education in respect of the complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding non-payment of salary pointed out that the complaint filed by the petitioner was without any basis. The Regional Deputy Director of Higher Education, Meerut by his letter dated 19th January, 2001 also directed the Manager, Committee of Management not to pay salary to such employees who were absent from the College without grant of leave. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 24th January, 2001 directed the Accounts Officer to ensure that salary bills of employees was not cleared without perusing the attendance register because it had came to his notice that salary was being paid to employees who were absent. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 24th January, 2001 directed the Accounts Officer to ensure that salary bills of employees was not cleared without perusing the attendance register because it had came to his notice that salary was being paid to employees who were absent. It has also been stated that various notice/publication in the newspapers were made directing the petitioner to join the College but still he do not report for duty and so payment of salary was stopped since the petitioner continuously remained absent. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Principal of the College had directed for stoppage of payment of salary of the petitioner with ulterior motives even though he had been continuously working at the residence of the Principal of the College. He also submitted that no disciplinary action had been taken against him. He also stated that the dispute in the present petition is with regard to the arrears of salary from 1st January, 2001 to 2nd January, 2003 as salary was subsequently paid to the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE counter affidavit sworn by the Principal of the College mentions that the Educational Authorities had inquired into the matter and had found that the complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding harassment of the petitioner by the Principal was without any basis. The affidavit also mentions that when it came to the notice of the Principal that salary was paid to the petitioner though he was continuously absent, he immediately took steps and payment of salary was stopped from January, 2001. There is no good reason to disbelieve the Principal, particularly when the educational authorities had given a report in his favour. It is, therefore, not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner for payment of salary for the intervening period as he had remained absent. It also needs to be pointed out that merely because disciplinary action was not taken against the petitioner for remaining absent does not mean that the stand of the respondents is incorrect and the petitioner would become entitled for payment of salary. ( 6 ) IT is, therefore, not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. .