JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP for respondents no. 1 and 2, Mr. Viral Salot, learned advocate for respondent no. 3 and Mr. C.P. Champaneri, learned advocate for respondent no. 5. Though served, none appears for respondent no. 4. 2. The facts in this petition need not be reiterated as they have been extensively referred in the order dated 07.08.2020 which reads as under: "1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Jha learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Niddhi Vyas learned AGP for the State and Mr. Viral Salot learned advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working with the respondent No.3 school since 1997. Because of the reduction of classes of Standard 11 and 12 in the respondent no.3 school, the petitioner was declared surplus by an order dated 18.09.2019. The petitioner's case is that unless and until he is absorbed in other school, the respondent continues to be liable to pay salary to him. On 24.09.2019, the District Education Officer passed an order directing that the respondent no.2-school absorbs the petitioner. The petitioner was relieved by the respondent no.3 on 25.09.2019. The case of the petitioner is that when he went to join at the respondent no.4-school on 26.09.2019, he was not allowed to report at respondent no.4-school. On 27.09.2019 therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the District Education Officer. A copy of the representation is annexed to the petition at page 31, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he had reported to the respondent no.4-school but was not permitted to resume his duty. It appears that the District Education Officer passed a fresh order on 04.10.2019 that the petitioner be absorbed in the respondent no.5-school. The petitioner went to report on 01.10.2019 and 09.10.2019, but was refused to resume his duties. The petitioner again made a representation to the District Education Officer on 10.10.2019 (page 45). On 14.10.2019, the petitioner requested that the respondent no.3 may continue to pay the salary. By an order dated 01.01.2020, on the directions of the District Education Officer, the respondent No.3-school has sought to recover the salary for a period of three months from 25.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 from the petitioner. 3. On 14.10.2019, the petitioner requested that the respondent no.3 may continue to pay the salary. By an order dated 01.01.2020, on the directions of the District Education Officer, the respondent No.3-school has sought to recover the salary for a period of three months from 25.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 from the petitioner. 3. The District Education Officer on 13.01.2010, has addressed a letter to the petitioner that the petitioner should explain as to why he did not report at the respondent no.5-school and it appears that the petitioner's conduct is to avoid resuming duties at the school where he was posted. To this, the petitioner has responded by letters dated 27.01.2020 and 05.03.2020. Mr.Jha would also submit that the notice dated 13.01.2020 is issued to him only because the petitioner made representation on 11.01.2020. 4. Ms.Vyas learned AGP states that the decision of these communications is pending consideration before the respondent no.1-District Education Officer. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the present petition, the respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 schools are already parties and they have chosen not to appear. 6. The District Education Officer while arriving at a decision pursuant to a communication dated 13.01.2020 shall also call for an explanation on the unfolding of events from the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 schools and then take an appropriate decision as to whether is it really the fault of the petitioner when it is a specific case that the respondent nos.4 and 5 did not permit the petitioner to resume his duties. The respondent no.1 shall take a decision on or before 21.08.2020 and place the same on record together with an affidavit. Before taking such decision, the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 schools shall also be heard and the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of hearing. 7. Stand over to 26.08.2020. Registry to communicate the order through E-mail." 3. Subsequently, a detailed order was also passed on 10.09.2020 reiterating the order of 07.08.2020 which reads as under: "1. This court on 07.08.2020 recorded the facts in this petition and passed the following extensive order: "1. Heard Mr.Sudhanshu Jha learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms.Niddhi Vyas learned AGP for the State and Mr.Viral Salot learned advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working with the respondent No.3 school since 1997. This court on 07.08.2020 recorded the facts in this petition and passed the following extensive order: "1. Heard Mr.Sudhanshu Jha learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms.Niddhi Vyas learned AGP for the State and Mr.Viral Salot learned advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working with the respondent No.3 school since 1997. Because of the reduction of classes of Standard 11 and 12 in the respondent no.3 school, the petitioner was declared surplus by an order dated 18.09.2019. The petitioner's case is that unless and until he is absorbed in other school, the respondent continues to be liable to pay salary to him. On 24.09.2019, the District Education Officer passed an order directing that the respondent no.2-school absorbs the petitioner. The petitioner was relieved by the respondent no.3 on 25.09.2019. The case of the petitioner is that when he went to join at the respondent no.4-school on 26.09.2019, he was not allowed to report at respondent no.4-school. On 27.09.2019 therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the District Education Officer. A copy of the representation is annexed to the petition at page 31, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he had reported to the respondent no.4-school but was not permitted to resume his duty. It appears that the District Education Officer passed a fresh order on 04.10.2019 that the petitioner be absorbed in the respondent no.5-school. The petitioner went to report on 01.10.2019 and 09.10.2019, but was refused to resume his duties. The petitioner again made a representation to the District Education Officer on 10.10.2019 (page 45). On 14.10.2019, the petitioner requested that the respondent no.3 may continue to pay the salary. By an order dated 01.01.2020, on the directions of the District Education Officer, the respondent No.3- school has sought to recover the salary for a period of three months from 25.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 from the petitioner. 3. The District Education Officer on 13.01.2010, has addressed a letter to the petitioner that the petitioner should explain as to why he did not report at the respondent no.5-school and it appears that the petitioner's conduct is to avoid resuming duties at the school where he was posted. To this, the petitioner has responded by letters dated 27.01.2020 and 05.03.2020. Mr.Jha would also submit that the notice dated 13.01.2020 is issued to him only because the petitioner made representation on 11.01.2020. 4. To this, the petitioner has responded by letters dated 27.01.2020 and 05.03.2020. Mr.Jha would also submit that the notice dated 13.01.2020 is issued to him only because the petitioner made representation on 11.01.2020. 4. Ms.Vyas learned AGP states that the decision of these communications is pending consideration before the respondent no.1-District Education Officer. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the present petition, the respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 schools are already parties and they have chosen not to appear. 6. The District Education Officer while arriving at a decision pursuant to a communication dated 13.01.2020 shall also call for an explanation on the unfolding of events from the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 schools and then take an appropriate decision as to whether is it really the fault of the petitioner when it is a specific case that the respondent nos.4 and 5 did not permit the petitioner to resume his duties. The respondent no.1 shall take a decision on or before 21.08.2020 and place the same on record together with an affidavit. Before taking such decision, the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 schools shall also be heard and the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of hearing. 7. Stand over to 26.08.2020. Registry to communicate the order through E-mail." 2. On that date, it was observed in the order that nobody had appeared on behalf of respondent no.4 and respondent no. 5. On 26.08.2020, this court passed another order which reads as under: "1. Pursuant to the order dated 7.8.2020, Mr.I.G. Joshi, learned AGP states that the DEO has passed an order dated 21.8.2020. The same has been placed on record by way of an affidavit filed by one Mr.Hemant Kumar Patel working at the DEO Office, Anand. The Registry to place this affidavit on record. 2. Further the order indicates that the petitioner is directed to report at the respondent No.5 - school. Accordingly, the petitioner shall report for duty at the respondent No.5 - school on 3.9.2020. The respondent DEO shall ensure that the respondent No.5 complies with the order of permitting the petitioner to resume his duties. This order is made because despite several adjournments, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 - schools have not appeared before this Court. The order of the DEO also indicates that the management has not even appeared at the hearing before the DEO. This order is made because despite several adjournments, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 - schools have not appeared before this Court. The order of the DEO also indicates that the management has not even appeared at the hearing before the DEO. The DEO shall report compliance of reinstatement of the petitioner in the respondent No.5 - school. 3. Stand over to 10.9.2020. 4. Mr.Jha, learned counsel is given an opportunity to file rejoinder to the reply of the DEO." 3. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGP submits that pursuant to the order dated 26.08.2020, attempts were made by the District Education Officer, Anand (DEO) to permit the petitioner to report at respondent no. 5 school and that the reports of the DEO indicate that on two occasions attempts were made by the DEO to sustain and report compliance of the order of this court but respondent no. 5 has refused to comply. Mr. Antani would submit that since the respondent no. 5 school is a grant-in-aid school, orders of cut in grant etc can be the only mode by which the school can be asked to compensate for its non-compliance. 4. It is unfortunate that the respondent no. 5 has shown disregard of the order of this court inasmuch as though notice was issued by this court on 05.06.2020, the respondent no. 5 school has remained absent and not represented its case. The stand of the school of remaining absent seems to have emboldened the management of the respondent no. 5 school to disregard and disobey orders passed by this court on 07.08.2020 and 26.08.2020. 5. Registry to issue fresh notice to respondent no. 5 making it returnable on 08.10.2020. Respondent no. 5 to show cause as to why action be not taken against it for non compliance of the orders of this court in addition to non-compliance of the orders of the DEO on 08.10.2020. If no explanation is put forth by respondent no. 5 school, the court shall pass ex-parte orders directing the DEO to take appropriate measures available under law viz-a-viz respondent no. 5 school so as to protect the interest of the petitioner in compliance of the resolution declaring the petitioner as surplus. 6. Registry to communicate the order through email. At the request of Mr. K.M. Antani, a copy of the order be furnished to Mr. 5 school so as to protect the interest of the petitioner in compliance of the resolution declaring the petitioner as surplus. 6. Registry to communicate the order through email. At the request of Mr. K.M. Antani, a copy of the order be furnished to Mr. Antani on his email address for compliance as it is found that despite repeated adjournments respondent no. 5 has not remained present." 4. For the period from 03.09.2020 to 23.09.2020 for a period of ten days, salaries has been paid by respondent no. 5 as recorded in the order dated 15.10.2020. Taking this period out from the period from 01.01.2020 to 04.11.2020, for the remaining months, the petitioner has not been paid salary. As recorded in the orders referred to hereinabove, it was only because of the recalcitrant stand of the respondent no. 4 school which though served has never appeared, that the petitioner could not report at the place where he was supposed to report, on being declared as surplus. 5. Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that deducting the period from 03.09.2020 to 23.09.2020, for the remaining period from 01.04.2020 to 04.11.2020, for no fault of the petitioner he could not work. Apparently, as recorded in the order also it was respondent no. 4 because of whose failure the petitioner could not work at the school where he was sent for joining his duties. Reliance is placed on order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 19260 of 2017 wherein in identical circumstances for the salaries in question, the District Education Officer was directed to release payment towards salaries. 6. Accordingly, the District Education Officer shall pay the amounts in question towards salary for the period from 01.01.2020 to 04.11.2020 minus the period from 03.09.2020 to 23.09.2020. The District Education Officer shall pay the amounts to the petitioner and recover the same from the grant that the respondent no. 4 is getting benefit of. The entire exercise to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. The period for which respondent no. The District Education Officer shall pay the amounts to the petitioner and recover the same from the grant that the respondent no. 4 is getting benefit of. The entire exercise to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. The period for which respondent no. 4 school did not permit the petitioner to resume his duties and the period in question from 18.10.2019 to 04.11.2020 shall be treated as service for the purposes of all benefits and such an entry will be made in the service book of the petitioner by the concerned school and the District Education Officer shall certify the same as valid. 7. With the above directions, petition is allowed. Civil application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.