Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 169 (GAU)

MANASHI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-01-30

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and MR. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for Secondary Education Department. 2. The petitioner, who is a post graduate in Political Science, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Akaya Girls High School as per the order dated 07.12.1999 of the then District Elementary Education Officer, Barpeta. As the salary and allowances were not paid to the petitioner, a writ petition being WP (C) No.6459/2005 was preferred, which was disposed of by the order dated 23.12.2008, wherein the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal being WA No.47/2009, which was disposed of by the order of 11.08.2009, whereby the State respondents were directed to pay the unpaid salary of the petitioner for the period, for which she had actually rendered her service. It is to be noted that in the meantime, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with by the authorities and accordingly, the question had arisen as to whether the petitioner is entitled to her salary for the period, for which she had actually rendered her service or not. 3. The order of the Division Bench dated 11.08.2009 is to be construed from the aforesaid perspective. Accordingly, upon non compliance of the said direction, a contempt petition being Cont.Cas (C) No.07/2012 was preferred by the petitioner. 4. In the affidavit of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam filed in the said contempt petition, in paragraph-3, a statement was made that in compliance of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, a proposal for payment of arrear salary in respect of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.7,97,052/- was submitted to the Government for the period from 07.12.1999 to 31.10.2009 as per the letter dated 18.12.2009. It was further stated that thereafter in compliance of the order of 11.08.2009 in WA No.47/2009, the Government had issued an order vide No.ELC/WA/47/2009/390/6 dated 07.09.2009 directing the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to pay the salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period, for which she had actually rendered her service. It is stated by Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the arrear salary for the said period from 07.12.1999 to 31.10.2009 had been paid to the petitioner. It is stated by Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the arrear salary for the said period from 07.12.1999 to 31.10.2009 had been paid to the petitioner. But, on fact, the petitioner had been released from service on 07.08.2013 and therefore the order of the Division Bench of 11.08.2009 has to be construed to mean that the petitioner is required to be paid her salary up to 07.08.2013 inasmuch as, the petitioner had actually worked up to the said period. 5. The Division Bench in its order of 11.08.2009 had observed that the said appeal was on a limited issue on the entitlement of the petitioner to receive salary for the period she had rendered service as Assistant Teacher in the Akaya Girls High School and the direction of the Division Bench was as follows:- "In the above view of the matter, we dispose of this writ appeal by directing the State respondents to pay her unpaid salary by taking note of the period, during which the appellant rendered service. It is open to the State to recover such amount which is to be p aid to the appellant pursuant to this order, from the officer who is responsible for the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner." 6. Accordingly, it is noticed that the Division Bench had directed the State respondents to pay the unpaid salary of the petitioner by taking note of the period for which the petitioner had rendered her service. The Division Bench had not provided that the salary is to be paid to the petitioner up to the date of the order of the Division Bench. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason as to why the salary of the petitioner for the balance period after 31.10.2009 up to the date of her release from service should not be paid to the petitioner. 8. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department to consider the aforesaid aspect and pass a reasoned order thereon by taking into consideration the order of the Division Bench dated 11.08.2009 in WA No.47/2009 and also by verifying from the record as to the period for which the petitioner had actually rendered her service. 9. 9. The aforesaid exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. Depending upon the order to be passed by the Commissioner and Secretary, subsequent consequential action be also taken. 10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands closed.