JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Markandey Rai for the petitioner, Learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 2. As agreed by learned counsels for the parties, since the pleadings are complete, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage. 3. Though the controversy, which has engaged the attention of this Court by means of the present writ petition is very short but shows the ways and means adopted by the respondents for harassing their employees to the extent of not only putting him/her to great inconvenience but making the entire family to suffer to the extent of starvation without there being any illegality or irregularity on the part of such an employee. 4. The petitioner, Smt. Shailendra Rai, an Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School has approached this Court on account of non payment of her salary by the respondents since March’ 2005 without there being any fault on her part. A writ of mandamus has been prayed directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner since March’ 1985. 5. To start with, this Court directed the respondents to file counter-affidavit informing the Court as to why salary has not been paid to the petitioner. On 21.8.2006, the following order was passed by this Court : “Sri C.K. Rai Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Respondents may seek instruction as to why payment of salary is not being effected in favour of the petitioner. The District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra may also file his affidavit alongwith the objection of the Finance and Audit Officer in his office, referred to in the letter dated 27.4.2006 List on 31st August, 2006.” 6. When the matter again came up on 27.10.2006, a vague and incomplete reply was filed which was noticed by this Court in its order dated 27.10.2006 as under : “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has not been served with counter-affidavit filed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra. When the matter again came up on 27.10.2006, a vague and incomplete reply was filed which was noticed by this Court in its order dated 27.10.2006 as under : “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has not been served with counter-affidavit filed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra. Moreover, the affidavit filed is not accompanied with the objection of the Finance and Audit Officer referred to in the letter of the District Basic Education Officer dated 27th April, 2006, as was directed under order of this Court dated 21st August, 2006. Let Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 file a better affidavit in strict compliance of the order of this Court dated 21st August, 2006, by 20th November, 2006. Put up on 20th November, 2006.” 7. Noticing that there was no fault shown on the part of the petitioner for non payment of salary, but inter alia shifting of responsibility sought to be indulged by the respondents, this Court on 11.11.2007 passed the following order : “In the present case short counter-affidavit has been filed and the same is only on behalf of respondent No. 3. In pith and substance the said short counter-affidavit supports the version of the petitioner and entire burden has been fastened upon Finance and Accounts Officer, based at the office of District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra for ensuring payment of salary to petitioner. Backdrop of the case reflects that some adjustment has been made and the reason why Finance and Accounts Officer is not ensuring payment of salary to petitioner is not all before this Court, as such it would be expedient that the version of Finance and Accounts Officer should come before this Court. In these circumstances and in this background, Finance and Accounts Officer, Office of District Basic Education Officer indicating as to why salary is not being ensured to petitioner. While preparing counter-affidavit details furnished in short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 shall also be explained. For this purpose, learned counsel for petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this short counter-affidavit upon Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Sonebhadra within three weeks from today. In the event of service of short counter-affidavit alongwith a copy of this order in all eventuality counter-affidavit has to be filed by Finance and Accounts Officer within next three weeks. In the event of service of short counter-affidavit alongwith a copy of this order in all eventuality counter-affidavit has to be filed by Finance and Accounts Officer within next three weeks. List after one month.” 8. Thereafter, on 13.8.2009, 5.10.2009 and 9.10.2009 having found that the respondents were neither able to give any justification for non payment of salary to the petitioner nor had made any effort to pay her salary, the following orders were passed : “The only grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being given salary since March 2005, though she is a regularly appointed teacher in a Junior High School maintained by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Though counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 though his counsel but he learned counsel is not present. Sri Prabhat Rai, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 is present but he is not able to tell as to why the salary has not been paid to the petitioner till date. Since the Court is not getting any assistance from them so it is directed that respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are shall be present in Court and explain as to why the salary of the petitioner has not been paid so far. List this matter on 30th September on which date appropriate orders will be passed in this matter. Sri Prabhat Rai, holding brief for Sri Neeraj Tripathi, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 5 and the learned standing counsel for respondents 3 & 5 are directed to make compliance of this order. The office is directed to furnish a copy of this order by Monday, i.e 17.8.2009. 13.8.2009" “Vide order dated 13.8.2009 the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 both were required to appear before this Court on 30.9.2009 in person to explain as to why the petitioner has not been paid salary so far but since 30.9.2009 was declared as holiday, Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 stated that the respondent No. 3 is not present. Sri Vipul Tripathi, holding brief on behalf of Sri Neeraj Tripathi stated that he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 5 but it appears that the respondent No. 5 has engaged some other counsel. Sri Vipul Tripathi, holding brief on behalf of Sri Neeraj Tripathi stated that he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 5 but it appears that the respondent No. 5 has engaged some other counsel. It is not concerned with the Court as to how many counsels were engaged in a matter but once notice has been issued to the party concerned and he is aware with the case, it is his obligation to keep watch of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Nos. 3 and 5 both are directed to be present in person before this Court on 9.10.2009. Sri Rai and Sri Tripathi shall communicate this order to respondent Nos. 3 and 5 respectively as the same has been passed in their presence. 5.10.2009" “On 13.8.2009 this Court passed order directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 both to be present in person before this Court to explain as to why the salary of petitioner has not been paid though he is a regularly appointed teacher in Junior High School maintained by Basic Shiksha Parishad. The respondent No. 3, Sri Rajesh Kumar is present but the respondent No. 5 is not present. Sri Vipul Tripathi holding brief on behalf of Sri Neeraj Tripathi states that he has communicated the direction of this Court to respondent No. 5 but he has not responded. Let non-bailable warrant be issued to respondent No. 5 to ensure his presence before this Court on 21.10.2009. The office shall take appropriate steps for compliance of this order. The respondent No. 3 shall also remain present on the next date. List this matter on 21.10.2009. 9.10.2009" 9. The reluctant attitude shown by the respondent No. 5 compelled this Court in issuing non-bailable warrant on 9.10.2009 as already noted above. However, this time, the Registry of this Court came to rescue of the respondents by not taking steps for issuing non bailable warrant as directed and on 21.10.2009 a report was submitted that due to rush of work, no further action could be taken by them and, therefore, they may be granted some further time to comply with the Court’s order dated 9.10.2009. 10. 10. In the meantime, an application No. 274455 of 2009 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 stating that firstly due to mistake of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate, he did not get any information of the order dated 17.8.2009 and, therefore, could not appear on 5.10.2009 and secondly that on 6.10.2009 when he received the information by that time he suffered viral fever and hence could not appear on 9.10.2009. The above statement is sought to be supported by a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Sonebhadra dated 12.10.2009 certifying that the respondent No. 5 Rajesh Kumar was in his treatment as an outdoor patient since 8.10.2009 to 10.10.2009 and fitness certificate is being issued from 12.10.2009. 11. It is to be noted that though respondent No. 5 is impleaded by his office and, therefore, he ought to be represented by learned Standing Counsel appointed by the State Government but in this case, the application has been filed through Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate, who has also filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 5 earlier. The respondent No. 5 thus has engaged this private counsel but whether for the said purpose he obtained permission from the Government or not is not clear from the record. 12. On the request of learned counsels for the parties, this matter was taken up on 28.10.2009 on which date Sri Manohar Prasad, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sonebhadra and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sonebhadra, both were present. A supplementary counter-affidavit sworn on 27.10.2009 at 3.10. p.m. by the respondent 3 was also filed stating that by cheque dated 15.10.2009, salary of the petitioner for the period of March’ 2005 to October’ 2009 has been paid and a photocopy of Treasury Cheque dated 26.10.2009 was annexed. In paras 4 and 5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is said that due to some confusion and misconception, some delay has occurred in making payment of salary to the petitioner, which is regretted and it is said that since the petitioner’s salary has been paid, therefore, no further cause of action survives and, the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous. The deponent of the affidavit has also tendered his unconditional apology. 13. The deponent of the affidavit has also tendered his unconditional apology. 13. Normally, when the relief sought in the writ petition is met in the hands of the respondents and this Court finds that no further cause of actions survives, as a normal practice, the writ petitions are dismissed having become infructuous but here is a case where the petitioner’s salary was detained by the respondents illegally and without any lawful justification, as is evident from the above facts, and when she made this complaint to this Court in August 2006, even then the respondents did not look into the matter as a model and law abiding employer having some sense of sympathy and justice for their employees, but here in a casual fashion they filed incomplete and vague affidavits shifting blame from one and another. No attempt shown to be made to remedy the grievance of the petitioner and that is how she was compelled to suffer not only herself but the entire family for a further period of three years and more. Not only this, the respondents shown the audacity and courage of even not attending this Court flouting its order to the maximum possible level and it is only when they found no other option, the salary is paid to the petitioner. This Court is thus clearly satisfied that their action by means of the supplementary counter-affidavit is not bona fide but just to bury a just and valid grievance of harassment of the petitioner by their extraordinary, not only belated but also illegal and arbitrary act, and they are trying to get the matter consigned so as to wriggle out of the clutches of law in respect to affixing of responsibility and liability upon the officer concerned for not only illegal detention of salary of a person for almost four years but also by harassing and victimizing her for no fault on her part. 14. In my view, here is a case which cannot be allowed to shut in such a manner by simply confining the matter to record without considering as to whether the respondents are in fact guilty of an illegal and arbitrary act, and, if so, how they must be made accountable/responsible for the same. 15. 14. In my view, here is a case which cannot be allowed to shut in such a manner by simply confining the matter to record without considering as to whether the respondents are in fact guilty of an illegal and arbitrary act, and, if so, how they must be made accountable/responsible for the same. 15. An equity Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only entitled to look into valid grievances of the citizen but also to pass appropriate orders against the State or its officers and instrumentality as the case may be where they are found to have acted in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner. From the own admission of the respondents in the counter-affidavit where they have not shown any fault on the part of the petitioner as a reason for non payment of salary to her since March’ 2005, the denial of salary to the petitioner is evidently arbitrary and also infringes her constitutional right under Articles 21 and 300A which provides that no person shall be deprived of her property except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been deprived of her lawful salary and wages, which she has earned after rendering service, in a manner which is not prescribed in law. 16. Now, I may give in brief the explanation given by the respondents for non payment of salary to the petitioner. The petitioner was initially working as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School, Billi Obra and was promoted as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) on 7.2.2004. It appears that a Government Order was issued on 9.6.2004 that the Teachers in the Primary Schools be allowed to be adjusted/accommodated according to the strength of the students in the schools and may be shifted to other schools where there is deficiency. The Board of Basic Education issued certain directions on 24.7.2004 that the Teachers who are posted/appointed after July 2003 if are found in excess may be transferred/adjusted and those who have the longest period of posting should first be adjusted. The Board of Basic Education issued certain directions on 24.7.2004 that the Teachers who are posted/appointed after July 2003 if are found in excess may be transferred/adjusted and those who have the longest period of posting should first be adjusted. It appears that the Secretary, Basic Education, Allahabad passed an order on 11.2.2005 stating that in the Junior High School, Billi, 8 teachers working and five of such Teachers were to be adjusted by the District Basic Education Officer but since Sri Shailendra Rai and Rajani Rajvanshi were two teachers who were posted after July, 2003 therefore first of all the said two teachers be adjusted and thereafter adjustment of rest of three teachers should be made. Pursuant to the said order of Secretary, Basic Education, Allahabad, the respondent No. 3 passed an order on 2.3.2005 cancelling adjustment of Smt. Nirmala Devi-II, another teacher working in the Junior School, Billi, Sonebhadra. He also directed for compliance of the Secretary, Board of Basic Education’s letter dated 11.2.2005. It is also said that in view of the aforesaid orders, no further teacher was required to be adjusted from aforesaid Junior High School since the strength of teachers was as per the requirement and standard fixed, therefore, the petitioner continued to work in the said institution and it was in the interest of the students at large. It is also said that in June 2006, the strength of Junior School reduced to three due to promotion and transfer of Sri Munni Lal, a senior Teacher of Junior High School, Billi, Chopan as Head Master to Junior High School, Obradeeh, Vikas Kshetra Chopan, Sonebhadra. It is further said that the petitioner’s functioning in the institution concerned was justified in all these circumstances and, therefore, when the salary bills of the petitioner were received in the office of respondent No. 3, the same were countersigned by respondent No. 3, in particular Sri Vinod Sharma holding office of respondent No. 3, and, the file sent to the office of respondent No. 5 for payment of salary but it is he (respondent No. 5) who is not making payment to the petitioner. Paras 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit of respondents No. 3 are reproduced as under : “10. Paras 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit of respondents No. 3 are reproduced as under : “10. That is is most respectfully submitted that since there was no requirement and occasion for adjustment of the petitioner for the reasons stated above and as such she remained posted in the institution in question and was discharging her duties and accordingly, her attendance was also certified by the Regional Asstt. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chopan, Sonebhadra and her salary bill was submitted in the office of the deponent upon which the same was counter-signed by the deponent and was sent of the the office of Finance and Accounts Officer of the office of B.S.A. Sonebhadra for payment of her salary. 11. That it is relevant to mention here that the Finance and Accounts Officer of the office of the deponent without there being any order of the competent authority, deleted the salary of the petitioner and made payment of salary to the rest of the teachers working in Vikas Kshetra Chopan and their salary were transmitted in the Bank accounts concerned.” 17. It is said that on the representation made by the petitioner to respondent No. 3, repeated directions were issued to respondent No. 5 but he did not take steps for payment of salary to the petitioner. When the matter was brought to the notice of District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, he also passed an order on 6.1.2006 for disbursement of salary to the petitioner but even thereafter the respondent No. 5, adopting an adamant attitude, did not pay salary to the petitioner. The stand taken by respondent No. 3 in paras 14, 15 and 16 of his counter-affidavit is reproduced as under : “14. That it is relevant to mention here that the abovenoted direction issued by the District Magistrate was also apprised to the Finance and Accounts Officer vide Letter dated 18.1.2006 issued by the office of the deponent but despite of the same, he has not paid the salary to the petitioner. 15. That it is relevant to mention here that the abovenoted direction issued by the District Magistrate was also apprised to the Finance and Accounts Officer vide Letter dated 18.1.2006 issued by the office of the deponent but despite of the same, he has not paid the salary to the petitioner. 15. That it is also pertinent of the mention here that at present in the institution in question in view of strength of students, at least five teachers are required but against the same, only 3 teachers are working and as such no occasion has arisen for adjustment of the petitioner, accordingly she continued to work in the said institution and has performed teaching work but despite of repeated directions issued by the higher authorities concerned as well as deponent, the Finance and Accounts Officer of the office of the deponent, is not making payment of salary to the petitioner for the reason best known to him. 16. That it is pertinent of the mention here that in pursuance to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 21.8.2006, the deponent has written a letter to the Finance & Accounts Officer asking him about the non-payment of salary to the petitioner. Copy of the said letter dated 25.8.2006 is filed herewith as Annexure CA-5 to this affidavit.” 18. In the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, it is evident that he has levelled serious allegations against the respondent No. 3 stating that in his (respondent No. 3) affidavit he has concealed several facts. In fact in view of the Secretary, Board of Education’s letter dated 24.7.2004, the petitioner ought to have been adjusted in some other institution but the same having not been done, her non payment of salary by respondent No. 5 is absolutely just and valid. From the documents appended to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, it is evident that the justification of a Teacher in a particular school and necessity of adjustment, if any, was to be considered firstly by the Board of Basic Education and, thereafter, by the District Basic Education Officer of the concerned District. From the documents appended to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, it is evident that the justification of a Teacher in a particular school and necessity of adjustment, if any, was to be considered firstly by the Board of Basic Education and, thereafter, by the District Basic Education Officer of the concerned District. No other authority or officer was entitled or empowered by any order either by the State Government or the Board of Basic Education authorizing him/her to flout either the orders passed by the District Basic Education Officer or to take a decision of his/her own so as to disobey or not to comply the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer. 19. The respondent No. 5, Sri Rajesh Kumar, who was present in the Court when enquired as to how he was authorized and empowered to ignore the direction/order issued by District Basic Education Officer, and, whether the respondent No. 3 is not an officer higher in rank than him in the hierarchy, he could not give any justification for his action. He also could not explain as to how he could disobey the order of the District Basic Education Officer (respondent No. 3). In fact, even from the documents filed as enclosures to his counter-affidavit in support of his averments made in the counter-affidavit, he failed to show as to which part of those orders either of the State Government or that of Board of Board of Basic Education authorises him to take a decision as to whether a particular teacher would be entitled for payment of salary when the District Basic Education Officer in his own discretion has not found any reason for shifting or transfer a teacher and has cleared the salary bill of such teacher. 20. With regard to non compliance of the Courts order regarding his presence, I find that on the one hand he claim to have fallen ill on 6.10.2009 but the medical certificate is for the period of 8.10.2009 to 10.10.2009, it appears that only to cover up the date on which he was supposed to appear before this Court, i.e 9.10.2009. With regard to non compliance of the Courts order regarding his presence, I find that on the one hand he claim to have fallen ill on 6.10.2009 but the medical certificate is for the period of 8.10.2009 to 10.10.2009, it appears that only to cover up the date on which he was supposed to appear before this Court, i.e 9.10.2009. Moreover, swearing of para 5 of the affidavit accompanying the recall application wherein he has said that he did not receive any information due to mistake on the part of the office of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate, is on the basis of the information received and regarding sickness and medical certificate, the averments contained in para 6 of the said affidavit have been partly sworn on the basis of personal knowledge and partly on the basis of record. This itself makes the aforesaid averments unreliable and incredible. 21. Having found myself satisfied that the respondent No. 5 has no valid and lawful justification for detaining salary of the petitioner, I am also satisfied that his act was not only illegal and arbitrary but travels in the realm of malice in law, therefore, it deserves to be dealt with severely by this Court so that no Government officer in future may have the audacity of harassing a helpless poor employee, firstly, by torturing him/her by detaining his/her lawful dues and thereafter to escape from any liability so as to boast that nobody can touch him even if he commits an ex facie illegal or unjust act. Every Government officer, howsoever high, must always keep in mind that nobody is above law. The hands of justice are meant not to only catch out such person but it is also the constitutional duty of a Court of law to pass suitable order in such a matter so that such an illegal act may not be repeated, not only by him/her but others also. This should be a lesson to everyone committing an act which is ex facie unjust and having not been done for any just or lawful reason. Prima facie it must be treated to have been done for collateral purposes and covered by the term ‘’malice in law’. 22. This should be a lesson to everyone committing an act which is ex facie unjust and having not been done for any just or lawful reason. Prima facie it must be treated to have been done for collateral purposes and covered by the term ‘’malice in law’. 22. The Apex Court has summarised “malice in law “ in (Smt.) S.R.Venkatraman v. Union of India and another, AIR 1979 SC 49 , as under : “It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith; and in actual experience, and as things go, these may well be said to run into one another.” (Para 8) 12. The Apex Court further in para 9 of the judgment in S.R. Venkatraman (supra) observed : “ 9. The influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence. It will therefore be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which makes a useful provision for the premature retirement of Government servants only in the ‘’public interest’, to a purpose wholly unwarranted by it, and to arrive at quite a contradictory result. An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must, therefore, be held to be infected with an abuse of power.” 13. In Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2009 (13) SC 643, the Apex Court said : “We also intend to emphasize that the distinction between a malice of fact and malice in law must be borne out from records; whereas in a case involving malice in law which if established may lead to an inference that the statutory authorities had acted without jurisdiction while exercising its jurisdiction, malice of fact must be pleaded and proved.” 14. In Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, 2009 (2) SCC 592 , dealing with the question of validity of an order of transfer on the ground of malice in law, the Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment observed as under : “16. .... Mala fide is of two kinds—one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 15. In HMT Ltd. and another v. Mudappa and others, JT 2007(3) SC 112, the Apex Court in paras 18 and 19 defined malice in law by referring to “Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 3rd Edn., London Butterworths, 1989” as under : “The legal meaning of malice is “ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action”. This is sometimes described as “malice in fact”. “Legal malice” or “malice in law” means ‘’something done without lawful excuse’. In other words, ‘’it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite’. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others.” “19. It was observed that where malice was attributed to the State, it could not be a case of malice in fact, or personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It could only be malice in law, i.e legal mala fide. The State, if it wishes to acquire land, could exercise its power bona fide for statutory purpose and for none other. It was observed that it was only because of the decree passed in favour of the owner that the proceedings for acquisition were necessary and hence, notification was issued. Such an action could not be held mala fide.” 16. The State, if it wishes to acquire land, could exercise its power bona fide for statutory purpose and for none other. It was observed that it was only because of the decree passed in favour of the owner that the proceedings for acquisition were necessary and hence, notification was issued. Such an action could not be held mala fide.” 16. In brief malice in law can be said when a power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose or on a fact which is claimed to exist but in fact, is non-est or for the purpose for which it is not meant though apparently it is shown that the same is being exercised for the purpose the power is supposed to be exercised. (See Manager Govt. Branch Press and another v. D.B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 ; Punjab Electricity Board v. Zora Singh and others, AIR 2006 SC 182; K.K. Bhalla v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2006 SC 898 ; P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, (2007) 9 SCC 497 ; M.P.State Corporation Diary Federation Ltd. and another v. Rajneesh Kumar Zamindar and others, (2009) 6 SCALE 17; Swarn Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 7 SCALE 622 and Sri Yemeni Raja Ram Chandar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, JT (2009) 12 SC 198. 17. Regarding harassment of a Government employee referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks v. Barnard and others, 1964 AC 1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, JT 1993 (6) SC 307, held as under : “An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law....... A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it...........Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.” (para 10) 18. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it...........Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.” (para 10) 18. The above observation as such has been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 19. In the case of Registered Society v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 530 , the Apex Court said as under : “No public servant can say “you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you cannot hold me personally liable” No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary”. 20. In the case of Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558 , the Apex Court has held as follows : “An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit.” 21. In the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another, AIR 1996 SC 715 , has held as follows : “A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 22. In this case, as already discussed above, the act of respondent No. 5 in non payment of salary to the petitioner is wholly unjustified and illegal. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 22. In this case, as already discussed above, the act of respondent No. 5 in non payment of salary to the petitioner is wholly unjustified and illegal. Simultaneously, this Court cannot leave the respondent No. 3 as wholly innocent in the matter for the reason that he, being a superior and higher officer, if found that someone in his office is not acting properly and is causing a glaring injustice and illegality, it was incumbent upon him to apprise the State Government of such act of the respondent No. 5 recommending a suitable disciplinary action against him, but the respondent No. 3 also kept silence in this matter and it is only when he was personally summoned, took steps which he could have taken earlier for paying the salary to the petitioner. To this extent, the respondent No. 3 is also guilty and is to be held responsible. 23. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay simple interest on the delayed payment of salary to the petitioner at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date the same became due till actual payment. 24. Liberty is given to respondent No. 1 to realize the amount of interest paid to the petitioner under this order from the officials concerned who, it may found responsible after holding an appropriate departmental enquiry in this matter. 25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that here is a case where the conduct of the respondents makes them liable for an exemplary cost which I quantify to Rs. two lacs. This would also be compensatory to the petitioner. The liability is distributed to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs against respondent No. 5 and fifty thousands against respondent No. 3. The above cost shall be paid by them within six months failing which it would be open to the Registrar General of this Court to take steps to realize the same amount as arrears of land revenue. After realizing the amount of cost, the same may be released in favour of the petitioner. ————