Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 70 (GAU)

ALAKA KALITA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2019-01-22

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned Counsel. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel for the BTC as well as Shri N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department. 2. The case projected by the petitioner is that after being selected in a recruitment process initiated in the year 1997, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a sanctioned vacant post and was posted at the No.143 Baroma Nimna Buniyadi Bidyalaya vide order dated 04.12.1999. The aforesaid school was under the territorial jurisdiction of BTAD. Upon such appointment, the petitioner had been discharging her duties regularly. In the mean time, the petitioner was transferred to another school and subsequently vide the Order dated 30.10.2004, the services of the petitioner was attached to No. 1131 Jalkhana L.P. School (General Area) where she had joined on 01.11.2004. The petitioner claims to be serving in the said school till date. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that though till the month of April, 2006 her salaries were paid, there after, no salary has been paid to the petitioner. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2006 was served upon the petitioner as to why her appointment should not be cancelled to which the petitioner had replied. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the matter did not proceed any further and in the mean time, the service of the petitioner was transferred to another school. 4. The Respondent No.2 thereafter vide letter dated 17.10.2006 directed the Director of Education, BAC to stop payment of salaries of 2272 nos. of L.P. School Teachers whose appointments were annexed to be illegal and in the said list, the name of the petitioner also figured. However, persons whose names were included in the said list have been paid their monthly salaries but such salaries have not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide two writ petitions which were disposed of with directions to consider the grievance of the petitioner which the learned Senior Counsel submits are yet to be redressed and petitioner continued to serve as an Assistant Teacher without any salary. 5. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide two writ petitions which were disposed of with directions to consider the grievance of the petitioner which the learned Senior Counsel submits are yet to be redressed and petitioner continued to serve as an Assistant Teacher without any salary. 5. Shri B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel had submitted that the salary of the initial period from the date of joining which was in 1999 till the month of April, 2006 being paid, there cannot be any reason for depriving the petitioner from her due salaries for the period thereafter as the petitioner continued to serve as an Assistant Teacher. The learned Senior Counsel had also referred to the Order dated 21.08.2018 passed by this Court wherein a direction was given to the Respondent Authorities to take steps for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner in terms of the earlier directions passed in WP(C) 2336 of 2007 and 2061/2008. However, in spite of such clear direction, the petitioner continued to serve without any salaries causing grave hardship and prejudice to her. 6. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC however submits that though the initial appointment of the petitioner was under the erstwhile BAC presently BTAD and she was transferred in the year 2004 to a school in the general area, there is no liability on the part of the BTAD, so far the petitioner is concerned. 7. Shri N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department referring to the order dated 21.08.2018 submits that since there was already a direction by this Court, no further direction may be passed. 8. The rival contentions of the respective counsels have been duly considered. 9. The case projected by the petitioner portrays a very sorry state of affairs. Since the petitioner has been allowed to continue in her service as an Assistant Teacher pursuant to her selection and appointment vide the order dated 04.12.1999 and also paid her salaries till April, 2006, there cannot be any reason for non-payment of her salaries since the month of May, 2006 till date. Though this writ petition was filed in the year 2015, even during the pendency of the writ petition, no redressal measures were taken to pay the salaries of the petitioner. Though this writ petition was filed in the year 2015, even during the pendency of the writ petition, no redressal measures were taken to pay the salaries of the petitioner. It is neither the case of the respondent that the petitioner is not discharging her duties as a Teacher pursuant to attachment to the No. 1131 Jalkhana L.P. School which is under the general area. The present employment of the petitioner being in the general area, there is no involvement of the BTC also. 10. In view of such facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to verify as to whether the petitioner has been discharging her duties as an Assistant Teacher of the No. 1131 Jalkhana L.P. School presently and upon such verification if it is found that the petitioner is indeed discharging her duties in the said school as an Assistant Teacher, her salaries, both arrear and current should be paid. The entire exercise which is directed to be undertaken has to be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of this order. The petitioner may obtain a certified copy of this order and furnish the same to the Respondent Authorities to do the needful in terms of this order. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.