Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 72 (GAU)

Karuna Kanta Kalita v. State of Assam

2003-02-17

AMITAVA ROY

body2003
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner before this Court is the General Secretary of a registered Association of Middle English School Teachers. The association has taken up the cause of its members/teachers who are aggrieved by the non-payment of their salary and the inaction on the part of the Respondent-authorities to regularise their services. 2. I have heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also Mrs. Singh, learned state counsel for the Respondents. 3. The case of the Petitioner in short is that, in response to an advertisement published on 3.9.91 in the English daily. The Sentinel' for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers in various Middle Schools of the State, many qualified candidates including the persons represented by the Petitioner association in the instant proceeding offered their candidature. As there was no advisory Board/Selection Board at the relevant time, appointment orders were issued in anticipation of the approval of the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board for Elementary Education Guwahati/Rangia. The persons represented by the Petitioner association were similarly appointed in the year 1993 in the scale of pay of Rs. 1185/- to 2395/- per month. Though initially their appointments were for a period of 4 months, it was thereafter extended from time to time and the Petitioner association claims that they are still continuing in service though since 1995, their pay has been denied. The grievance highlighted in the petition is that though the Petitioner association had in the meantime submitted several representations before the Respondent-authorities praying for regularisation of service of the teachers represented by them, no positive steps have been taken by the Respondent-authorities as a result whereof neither they are receiving their salary nor their services have been regularised. 4. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State Respondents. 5. Mr. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in the background of facts as narrated in the petition, the teachers of the Petitioner association have right in law to have their services regularised as well as their pay for the services rendered by them. The learned Counsel has also referred to the extracts of the Service Books of some of the teachers to underline the fact that they have been serving since 1993 and in the meantime have also earned increments in service. The learned Counsel has also referred to the extracts of the Service Books of some of the teachers to underline the fact that they have been serving since 1993 and in the meantime have also earned increments in service. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner therefore tried to contend therefrom that the State authorities have otherwise accepted the said teachers to be in regular employment but arbitrarily have withheld their salary and have failed to show any reasonable justification not to regularise their services. He has, therefore, urged that it is a fit case where a writ of Mandamus should be issued by this Court directing the State authorities to regularise the services of the teachers represented by the Petitioner association and further they be directed to release their salary to which they are entitled in the law. 6. Mrs. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents has argued in reply that a bare reading of the orders of appointment of the teachers represented by the Petitioner association would reveal that the same were subject to the approval of the sub-divisional Advisory Board, Guwahati/Rangia and in absence of any material on record to show that their appointments have been subsequently approved, they cannot insist to have their services regularised. Moreover, if their appointments are irregular they cannot claim their salary as well. 7. In absence of any affidavit countering the statements made in the writ petition, it is difficult to uphold the contention raised on behalf of the State Respondents. At the same time on the available materials on record it is not possible to issue a writ of Mandamus as prayed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. There, however, cannot be two opinions that if the teachers represented by the Petitioner association are in service continuously from 1993 without any break and have been rendering their services to the satisfaction of all concerned, they are entitled to have their cases considered for payment of salary to which they are entitled under the law and also to have their services regularised. However, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, I am not inclined to embark upon a fact finding exercise. I deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the State authorities to do the needful in this regard. 8. However, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, I am not inclined to embark upon a fact finding exercise. I deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the State authorities to do the needful in this regard. 8. In the above premises, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam-Respondent No. 2 to examine the grievance of the teachers represented by the Petitioner association in the light of the above observations and if the said authority finds that the claim of the Petitioner is genuine and tenable in law, he would take appropriate steps to release the salary of the teachers concerned and regularise their services in terms of the existing rules, circulars and guidelines. As the Petitioner claims that its members/teachers are serving from 1993, it is further ordered that the above named authority would complete the process as indicated hereinabove within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. The Petitioner would also submit a copy of the writ petition and its annexures before the said authority to do the needful. No costs. Writ petition disposed of.