Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 760 (GAU)

Nalini Konch v. State of Assam

2017-06-09

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : None appears for the petitioners, when the matter was called upon. 2. Heard Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Education, Elementary Department and Mr. R Barpujari, learned counsel for respondent No.5. None appeared for the petitioners also on 02.06.2017, when the matter was listed and called upon. 3. By the order dated 02.06.2017, it was provided that the matter be again listed on 09.06.2017 and, in the event, the learned counsel for the petitioners chooses not to appear, this Court would be constrained to proceed with the matter in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. As none appears for the petitioners today also, this Court proposes to give a final consideration to the writ petition, in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, more particularly, in view of the fact that this writ petition has been pending since the year 2012. 5. The petitioners state that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1989 in Betoni LP School & Bhakat Kaibatta LP School respectively. It is stated that the services of the petitioners were regularized and confirmed in the year 1994 and, consequently, the GPF account and the Service Book of the petitioners were also opened. 6. It is also the case of the petitioners that on being regularized and confirmed, the petitioners were paid the regular time scale of pay from 1989 to September 2007. But from October, 2007, the respondent authorities had stopped the salary of the petitioners without any reason, although the petitioners were working since the date of joining. 7. The petitioners had also filed a prior writ petition before this Court being WP(C)No.3437/2008 and by the order dated 05.02.2009 the said writ petition was disposed of by providing that the appropriate authority in the State respondents would undertake to verify the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary and take a decision in accordance with law. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam was required to take immediate steps in that regard and that the petitioners would also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of participating in the process. Consequently, the order dated 18.04.2011 was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam was required to take immediate steps in that regard and that the petitioners would also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of participating in the process. Consequently, the order dated 18.04.2011 was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education, Elementary Department, wherein it was provided that upon verification of the records, it was found that the writ petitioners were appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhemaji and even after termination of the services, they continued to work and draw salary in an illegal manner, which was allowed illegally by the concerned Officer serving at Dhemaji at that relevant point of time. 8. The petitioners also refer to certain other orders passed by this Court in WP(C)No.5384/2011, which were in respect of the petitioners by certain other persons. In the said writ petition, the order dated 07.04.2011 was assailed and the claim of the petitioners, therein, for payment of salary from August 2007 was accepted. 9. In the said order dated 07.04.2011 a submission was made that no discernible reasons could be found out as to why the petitioners therein were not entitled to salary. 10. In the instant case, the factual situation is to an extent different, inasmuch as, by the order dated 18.04.2011, the Commissioner and Secretary had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were illegally appointed by the then Inspector of Schools, and they were terminated from service. Accordingly, even though they were terminated from service, they continued to work and draw their salaries in an illegal manner. 11. In view of such differences in the factual situation, reliance of the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 01.03.2012 in WP(C)No.5384/2011 and other writ petitions cannot be accepted. 12. The writ petitioners also rely upon the order dated 07.08.2012 of the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Case No.2257/2012 in WA Sl.No.178477, wherein, in the interim, it was provided that the current salary be paid although there was a stay regarding recovery of arrear. 13. It is stated by Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Education Department that the said appeal which was ultimately registered as WA No.301/2012 had been dismissed by the Division Bench. 14. Case No.2257/2012 in WA Sl.No.178477, wherein, in the interim, it was provided that the current salary be paid although there was a stay regarding recovery of arrear. 13. It is stated by Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Education Department that the said appeal which was ultimately registered as WA No.301/2012 had been dismissed by the Division Bench. 14. In such view of the matter also, the reliance of the writ petitioners on the said order dated 07.08.2012 of the Division Bench cannot be accepted. 15. Mr. N Sarma, by referring to the affidavit filed by the Commissioner and Secretary points out that the writ petitioners had also preferred an earlier writ petition being WP(C)No.1634/2007, which was disposed of by the order dated 09.07.2007, providing that the case of the petitioners for payment of salary be referred to the Committee. It is stated that, accordingly, the case of the petitioners were placed before the Expert Committee constituted as per the direction of this Court in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (2) GLT 216. 16. But, however, the outcome of the said reference to the Committee is not presently known to the learned counsel. The learned Standing counsel also states that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of 752 teachers whose services were terminated in the year 1992 in the Dhemaji and Lakhimpur districts. It is stated that in order to examine the legality and validity of such cases, a separate screening committee had been formed by the respondent authorities. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the Expert Committee constituted as per the direction in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar(supra)’s case had given due consideration to the petitioners’ case and had passed any order thereon, the same may be duly complied and given effect by the respondent authorities. 18. However, the respondent authorities would also be at liberty to place the case of the petitioners before the screening committee constituted for examining the case of those teachers whose services were terminated in the year 1992 in respect of Dhemaji and Lakhimpur districts and had received their salaries upto 1st July, 2007. 19. Depending upon the outcome of such exercise, the respondent authorities would act accordingly, in respect of the petitioners also. 20. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands closed.