JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R Roychoudhury, learned Standing counsel, Education, Elementary Department, Assam and Mr. P Nayak, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department. 2. The petitioners were all appointed as Assistant Teachers by the District Elementary Education Officer, Bongaigaon in the year 1993-1994 against certain newly created post on the basis of a selection held by the Sub-Divisional Selection Board, North Salmara, Abhayapuri. 3. The petitioners had received their salary for the first 3(three) months i.e., till May 1994. Thereafter an issue had arisen as to whether the appointment of the petitioners were made by following due procedure of law or not. Accordingly the case of the petitioners were referred to the Manoharan Committee which was constituted to conduct an enquiry on the allegations of illegal appointment and irregular appointment of the teachers, as well as of excess appointments made in the LP/ME/MEM/HS/HSS in respect of the State of Assam during the period 01.03.1991-30.11.1996. Accordingly after the case of the petitioners were referred to the Manoharan Committee, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam had issued an order dated 30.01.2006 wherein it has been provided that on being enquired by the one man enquiry Committee headed by Sri S. Monoharan, IAS and subsequently by the Task Force /District Level Screening Committee/Departmental Screening Committee, the services of 125 teachers of ME/MEM/MV teachers working in the Bongaigaon district were regularized w.e.f. from the date of joining against the vacant posts as per the list enclosed therein. According to the enclosed list, the names of the petitioners appear in the following order as below : 1. Petitioner No.1 finds place at Sl. No.32, adjusted in No.2 Kokragaon Junior Basic School against the vacant post of Sailendra Singha, who had retired. 2. Petitioner No.2 finds place at Sl. No.46, adjusted in Ulubari ME School against the vacant post of Gajendra Nath Talukdar, who had retired. 3. Petitioner No.3 finds place at Sl. No.100, adjusted in Madhyam Kajalgaon ME School against the vacant post of Phulendra Daimary, who had retired. 4. Petitioner No.4 finds place at Sl. No.8, adjusted in 1139 Dakhin Amteka LP School against the vacant post of Kharga Bahadur Chetri, who had transferred. 5. Petitioner No.5 finds place at Sl. No.37, adjusted in Ulubari ME School against the vacant post of Tarun Ch. Brahma, who had retired. 6. 4. Petitioner No.4 finds place at Sl. No.8, adjusted in 1139 Dakhin Amteka LP School against the vacant post of Kharga Bahadur Chetri, who had transferred. 5. Petitioner No.5 finds place at Sl. No.37, adjusted in Ulubari ME School against the vacant post of Tarun Ch. Brahma, who had retired. 6. Petitioner No.6 finds place at Sl. No. 27, adjusted in Sonaikola MEM School against the vacant post of Abdul Rahim, who had been promoted. 7. Petitioner No.7 finds place at Sl. No. 99, adjusted in Ballamguri MV School against the vacant post of Nitai Ch. Paul, who had been promoted. 8. Petitioner No.8 finds place at Sl. No.40, adjusted in Lengtisinga ME School against the vacant post of Uday Kumar Sindhu, who had been promoted. 9. Petitioner No.9 finds place at Sl. No.78, adjusted in Rajpara MEM School against the vacant post of Abdus Sattar, who had been transferred. 10. Petitioner No.10 finds place at Sl. No.107, adjusted in 385 Chewchand Bagaria LP School against the vacant post of Surendra Ch. Ray, who had retired. 11. Petitioner No.11 finds place at Sl. No.115, adjusted in Dasimapra LP School against the vacant post of Lashmi Kt. Sarkar, who had retired. 12. Petitioner No.12 finds place at Sl. No.67, adjusted in Bijni Motilal Bagaria MV School against the vacant post of Ahalla Bala Ray, who had retired. 13. Petitioner No.13 finds place at Sl. No. 71, adjusted in Dhalagaon LP School against the vacant post of Balendra Ch. Ray, who had retired. 4. From a reading of the order dated 30.01.2006, it is apparent that the services of 125 teachers included in the enclosed list were regularized by the order dated 30.01.2006 and such regularization had taken place after being enquired by the Manoharan Committee and Task Force/District Level Screening Committee/Departmental Screening Committee. In such view of the matter it cannot be said that the regularization of the enclosed teachers, including the petitioners were made dehors the procedure followed at the relevant point of time in respect of such categories of teachers like that of the petitioners. But inspite of being so regularized and adjusted, it is the case of the petitioners that their salaries and allowances were still not paid. 5. But inspite of being so regularized and adjusted, it is the case of the petitioners that their salaries and allowances were still not paid. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners refer to the order dated 23.07.2010 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by which certain teachers who were under OBB Schemes were adjusted/regularized against certain vacant posts. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which could not be denied by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the said regularization and adjustment of the OBB teachers had adversely affected the regularization/adjustment of the 125 teachers who were regularized by the order dated 30.01.2006. A reference has also been made to a WT Message dated 24.02.2006, by which the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education Department writes to the District Elementary Education Officer allowing to attach those teachers who are regularized by the order dated 30.01.2006, but unable to join due to unavoidable circumstances, in the nearby needy schools where pupils teachers ratio are high. 6. Accordingly, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the services of the petitioners were accordingly attached to certain other schools. Accordingly by various orders, the petitioners were adjusted in different schools as mentioned in the respective orders. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioners remain that they had not been paid their salary and allowances. 7. Mr. P Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department refers to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Joint Secretary in the Finance Department wherein in paragraph 4, it has been stated that during the period excess teachers were appointed without post and that by the order dated 19.01.2009, this Court had banned further regularization of teachers under Monoharan Committee report. Neither of the said two statements comes in aid of the respondent to justify as to why the salary and allowances of the petitioners, who were already regularized, had not been paid. By an appropriate order of the Director, the services of the petitioners had been regularized against particular vacant post, and, thereafter, as per the WT message of the Commissioner and Secretary, they were attached to some other schools, which by itself would construe that there vacant posts existed. By an appropriate order of the Director, the services of the petitioners had been regularized against particular vacant post, and, thereafter, as per the WT message of the Commissioner and Secretary, they were attached to some other schools, which by itself would construe that there vacant posts existed. In such view of the matter, the plea that the petitioners were appointed in excess is no longer available to the respondent No.4, moreover, the process to which the petitioners were subjected was by getting their cases examined by the Monoharan Committee and other appointed committees and, thereafter, being regularized. Further the order dated 19.01.2009 of this Court in the concerned writ petitions, at best, provides that further regularization of the teachers under the Monoharan Committee be banned. In any view of the matter, the said order is to be construed to have prospective effect that from 19.01.2009, further regularization cannot be given effect to. The said order cannot come to the aid of the respondent authorities for not paying the salaries to those teachers who have been regularized by the order dated 30.01.2006. 8. In view of the aforesaid finding of this Court, the respondent authorities being, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education Elementary Department would pass appropriate order for payment of salary and allowances to the petitioners, at least from the date of their regularization. For the purpose, the Commissioner and Secretary shall pass individual speaking order in respect of all the petitioners. If the Commissioner and Secretary upon considering the case of the petitioners is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to salary, he shall give the reasons for the same, but in doing so, the Commissioner and Secretary shall also take into consideration the services of the petitioners had already been regularized by the order dated 30.01.2006 and the said order still remains in force. 9. The Commissioner and Secretary shall also keep in mind that after the teachers had been regularized by due procedure and non-availability of posts cannot be a reason for depriving the teachers from getting their salaries. In any view of the matter, the respondent authorities are extracting the services of the petitioners since the date of their initial appointment, which the respondent authorities are doing with full knowledge. In any view of the matter, the respondent authorities are extracting the services of the petitioners since the date of their initial appointment, which the respondent authorities are doing with full knowledge. After extracting the services of the petitioners with their full knowledge and allowing them to work and not paying their salaries would amount to exploitative enslavement as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which the law does not permit. 10. The Commissioner and Secretary while passing the order shall ascertain as to whether the respective teachers are working or not. 11. The aforesaid exercise would be carried out within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.