JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned State Counsel for Respondent No.1; and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for Respondents No.2 to 6. None appears for Respondent No.7 despite notice. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to pay him his salary and allowances with effect from December, 2004 till date. 3. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Majulipara M.V. School in the pay scale of Rs.1185 – 2395/-P.M. with other allowances as admissible under the Rules with effect from his joining the school. The petitioner, thereafter, joined the school and was given his salary upto the month of November, 2004. However, the petitioner was not paid his salary with effect from December, 2004 and he, therefore, submitted a representation before the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar, BTAD on 2.3.2005. The petitioner was then transferred and posted at Titaguri M.E. School against the vacant post of Assistant Teacher who had retired from that school in his own grade vide order dated 19.5.2010. When the petitioner went to join his new place of posting, he was initially allowed, but later on, since the Managing Committee refused to accept his joining, he was not allowed to work in the said school. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that although he was not allowed to take classes and join in the said school, he has been visiting the said school from time to time and he obtained a certificate from the Headmaster of the School on 31.12.2020 which is to the effect that the petitioner joined the Titaguri M.E. School on 19th May, 2010 afternoon and after a few days when the matter was reported to the Managing Committee of the said School, the Managing Committee refused to accept his joining since there were four Operation Black Board teachers working in the said school and the joining of the petitioner in the school would hamper in their regularization. Hence, he was debarred from attending the school. Hence, he was debarred from attending the school. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his representation dated 28.01.2021 addressed to the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar, BTR, Assam, prayed for a direction to the Headmaster of Titaguri M.E. School to allow him to join the school and to pay him his salary and allowances. By the said letter, the petitioner also mentioned that he was working in Majulipara M.V. School upto 2010 and, thereafter, he was transferred to Titaguri M.E. School on being released from Majulipara M.V. School on 1.6.2010. He was, however, not allowed to join Titaguri M.E. School and that he is paid his salary only upto November, 2004. Under the circumstances, the petitioner requested that he may be allowed to join the school and be given his salary and allowances. However, despite the representation of the petitioner, since the petitioner has not been given his salary with effect from December, 2004 nor he has been allowed to join the new place of posting at Titaguri M.E. School, he is before this Court. 5. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was not paid his salary with effect from December, 2004 and also to the fact that he has not been allowed to join Titaguri M.E. School by the Headmaster concerned at the behest of the School Managing Committee. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities for payment of his salary and for a direction to the school authorities to allow him to join the said school. But, since the same has not been done, the petitioner is before this Court and that the delay in approaching the Court or the respondent authorities cannot be a ground to deprive him of his right to be paid his due salary and to work against his appointed post. He submits that some sort of enquiry was conducted by the respondent authority, but that too has been conducted behind his back and the petitioner has no knowledge of what has transpired and that he has not been given any opportunity to present his case. He submits that pursuant to the so called enquiry, the petitioner has never been suspended nor any action taken against him. He submits that pursuant to the so called enquiry, the petitioner has never been suspended nor any action taken against him. He, therefore, submits that if the inaction of the petitioner is to be considered as laches, the same would also be applicable to the case of the respondent authorities. Therefore, under the circumstances, a direction may be given to the respondent authority to allow him to join in the school where he was transferred and also to pay him his salary and allowances with effect from December, 2004. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following citations:- (1) Ningoyomi Breeze Doye and ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2004 (Supp) GLT 46; (2) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dolly Das; (1999) 4 SCC 450 ; and (3) Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal and others, (2006) 5 SCC 353 . 6. Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has failed to implead the School Management Committee of Titaguri M.E. School as party respondent. Secondly, the petitioner has also suppressed the material facts. He submits that the respondent authorities have never received the representations dated 2.3.2005 and 30.6.2010 claimed to have been submitted by him. Referring to the communications annexed as Annexures-2 and 4 of the writ petition, the learned counsel submits that the same does not bear any seal and signature, which clearly goes to shows that they were never submitted to the respondent authorities concerned. The learned counsel further submits that the limited prayer of the petitioner is payment of arrear salary with effect from December, 2004 and nothing beyond that. Therefore, he submits that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should be allowed to join the post is not borne out of the pleadings. He submits that the claim of the petitioner itself suffers from the vice of delay and laches and the same should not be entertained by this Court. He also submits that in respect of the claim for payment of arrear salary, the same cannot be claimed beyond the period of three (3) years as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harendra Chandra Nath and Ors. Vs. He also submits that in respect of the claim for payment of arrear salary, the same cannot be claimed beyond the period of three (3) years as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harendra Chandra Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura and others, reported in 2013 (2) GLT 1094. He submits that the Division Bench’s decision is based upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 . Under the circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the writ petition should not be entertained and should be dismissed. 7. Mr. P.K. Borah, learned State Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 has adopted the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel, BTC and submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 9. As may be noticed, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Majulipara M.V. School vide order dated 9.12.1993 and he continued to work as such till he was transferred to Titaguri M.E. School vide order dated 19.05.2010. However, even prior to his transfer to the new school, the petitioner contends that he has not been paid his salary with effect from December, 2004. Upon submitting his joining report to the new school, the petitioner contends that he was not allowed to join the school and work on account of the objection made by the Managing Committee. To substantiate his such stand, the petitioner has obtained a certificate dated 31.12.2020 from the Headmaster of the Titaguri M.E. School, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The representations submitted by the petitioner on 2.3.2005 and 30.6.2010 has not only been denied by the respondent authority concerned in their affidavit, but has been disputed that it was ever submitted to the authority concerned. However, on acting upon the subsequent representation of the petitioner filed on 28.01.2021, some enquiry was conducted by the respondent authority i.e. the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar, which can be seen from the report annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit of the Respondent No.3 filed on 16.6.2022. However, on acting upon the subsequent representation of the petitioner filed on 28.01.2021, some enquiry was conducted by the respondent authority i.e. the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar, which can be seen from the report annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit of the Respondent No.3 filed on 16.6.2022. However, despite the findings being against the petitioner, admittedly the respondent authorities have not taken any action against the petitioner till date. This Court notices that there has been some delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the respondent authorities with his grievances or to approach this Court. But, however, the respondent authorities equally have also not taken appropriate action by not being vigilant in the monitoring of the schools concerned to ensure that the schools are functioning properly and that the appointed teachers are working. 10. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the matters should be examined by the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar by causing an enquiry into the matter. In doing so, the Director shall give due opportunities to the petitioner to the participate in the enquiry proceedings and the petitioner would be at liberty to submit and rely upon any document he wishes to in support of his claim that he has not been paid his salary with effect from December, 2004 and that he was not allowed to join in the new school, i.e. Titaguri M.E. School. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, if it is found that the petitioner has not been paid his due salaries, despite having worked as a teacher at Majulipara M.V. School, the Director shall pass appropriate orders in this regard. The enquiry, as directed, hereinabove, should be taken up and be completed as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall appear before the Director on 20th December, 2022 at 11.00 A.M., whereafter the Director shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the direction given hereinabove and complete the enquiry proceeding within a period of one month. 11. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.