Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 650 (GAU)

Juran Ali Ahmed v. state of Assam

2015-05-28

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
JUDGMENT ; 1. Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi learned counsel representing Respondent No. 2. 2. The four petitioners are claiming arrear salary for the period from 01.12.1995 to 12.06.2000. Apparently, this claim for arrear salary has been made by means of this writ petition filed in the year 2010. 3. The claim for arrear salary is laid on the premises that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1993 as Hindi Teachers as against 500 posts created by the Government of Assam under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Although they were initially appointed for a period of 3 months against fixed pay, such appointments were extended from time to time until the services were regularised after conducting a State Level Screening Test. According to the petitioners, the 500 posts so created were abolished but subsequently another 401 posts of Hindi Teachers had been created vide Government Letter dated 12.10.1999 and the in-service Teachers including the petitioners were permanently retained vide Government letter dated 03.08.2004. 4. In so far as payment of arrear salary is concerned, the petitioners referred to various communications made by the Government of Assam upto the period of 2006. The petitioners also refers to the orders passed by this Court in WP(C) 176/2005 and WP(C) 5364/2008, pursuant to which teachers similarly situated had been paid arrear salaries upon due verification. The claim for arrear salary is, therefore, being made on the basis that since persons similarly situated have been extended the benefit of arrear salary, the petitioners are also entitled to the same. Further, the petitioners also contend that for the period from 01.12.1995 to 12.06.2000 they had rendered service and as such they are legitimately entitled to claim and receive arrear salary for the said period. 5. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned State Counsel, at the very outset, submits that this writ petition does not merit consideration in view of the laches of the petitioners for having claimed arrears of salary at a very belated period. Mr. Goswami also placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2013 (3) GLJ 431 in the case of Harendra Chandra Nath & Others v. State of Tripura & Others. Mr. Goswami also placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2013 (3) GLJ 431 in the case of Harendra Chandra Nath & Others v. State of Tripura & Others. Referring to the said judgment and order rendered by a Division Bench of the Court sitting in the then Agartala Bench, Mr. Goswami submits that the petitioners have no right to recover the arrears beyond 3 years from the date of filing of the original writ petition. In other words, it is submitted that relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of 3 years prior to the date of the original application. 6. As indicated above, the petitioners are claiming arrear salary for the period from 01.12.1995 to 12.06.2000 by means of this writ petition field on 29.11.2010. 7. Having regard to the law laid down in the case of Harendra Chandra Nath (supra), this Court is of the view that for the laches on the part of the petitioners, the benefit for grant of arrear salary cannot be looked into by this Court. Although in terms of the case in Harendra Chandra Nath (supra) no right accrues upon the petitioners to recover arrear salary prior to 3 years from the date of filing of the writ petition, however it is left to the wisdom of the State Respondents to take any benevolent steps commensurate with good governance.