made out a strong prima facie case. Since the services of the petitioner were protected by the order dated 20.6.2013, the petitioner was entitled to regular salary of an assistant teacher. The words “status quo as on today in relation to the employment of the petitioner” would not mean that the petitioner should be paid the same salary which was being paid to the petitioner as a Shikshan Sewak. After successful completion of service of three years as a Shikshan Sewak, the petitioner was entitled to the regular salary. Merely because the petitioner had not produced the validity certificate, the respondent no.3 could not have refused to pay regular salary of an assistant teacher to the petitioner solely on the ground that he has not produced the validity certificate, specially when the Zilla Parishad had extracted the services of an assistant teacher from the petitioner. In any case, we have found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case and had continued the interim relief in favour of the petitioner. In the facts of the case, it would be necessary for the Zilla Parishad to pay the arrears of salary. The petitioner would be entitled to receive the regular salary that is paid to the other assistant teachers as it is an admitted position that the petitioner has successfully completed three years of service as a Shikshan Sewak on 30.10.2004 and the appointment of the petitioner was made by following the due procedure prescribed by law.
