High Court · 2012

Learned counsel for the petitioners also has drawn attention to their additional affidavit filed on 30.4.2010 and have annexed a document as Ann exure-A which was stated to have been issued on 14.11.2008 by District Elementar y Education Officer, Dhemaji District, one Mr.K.K.Baruah, AES to the Secretary t o the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, and with a copy to the Director of E lementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara stating that the petitioners were not ter minated from their service and they have been working continuously as Asstt.Teac hers in their respective schools and as such, they are entitled to monthly salar ies. On the other hand, Mr. M.R.Pathak contends that the petitioners were appointed against non-existent posts and the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhemaji, on the basis of the letter No.EAA.18/87/346 dated 12.5.92 issued by th e Director of Elementary Education, Assam, had instructed the termination of the services of the teachers who had been appointed irregularly against non-sanctio ned posts and those irregularly appointed teachers, whose services were termina ted were paid salaries for the period they worked i.e. from 20.12.1989 to 18.5.1 992. It has also been stated by the Respondents that the names of th e petitioners appeared in the list of 752 teachers whose services had been termi nated, except the petitioner No.26, as reported by the Deputy Inspector of Schoo ls, Dhemaji. It has been further stated that the payment of the salaries of the petitioners were stopped as per letter No.EHA.497/2006/240 dated 26.3.2007 and l etter No.EHA.497/2006/245 dated 04. 5. 2007. Such letters were issued according to the direction of the Government communicated vide letter No.ELC /WP(C) 4465/ 2006/331/179 dated 9.2.2007. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the Education Department submits that the petitioners were paid for the period they actually worked and they were not paid after their services were terminated in the year 1992 and as such, the petitioners have no right to approach this Court for quas hing of the communications issued by the Government and they are not entitled to any salary. Mr.Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, strenuo usly contends that in spite of the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit, th e fact remains that they were never served with any show cause notice or any ter mination order because of which they continued to serve till date. Therefore, in view of the rival contrary contentions, a disputed question of fact has arisen as to whether the petitioners were indeed terminated from their services as cont ended by the State respondents in the year 1992 after issuing show cause notice. Therefore, this aspect needs to be first verified by the authorities concerned before any consequential order can be passed. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that it will be appropriate for the State authorities to make an enquiry as to whether the petitioners had been actually served with the termination order, as stated by the respondents and if its found that the petitioners had been ser ved with the termination order, obviously, the petitioners have no right to serv e after the termination orders were issued to the petitioner and accordingly, th ey would not be entitled to any salary. However, if such termination orders we re indeed not served to the petitioners and if they continued to serve, as claim ed by them, they will be entitled to get salaries for the period they have rende red their services. Therefore, in view of the above, the authorities will examine th e case of each and every petitioner whether they had been served with show caus e notice for termination or the termination orders and if it is found that no sh ow cause notice or termination orders had been served to them, they will be enti tled to get salary for the services rendered by them as given to them for the period from December, 1989 to May, 1992. The entire exercise will be undertaken by the authorities within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this ord er by the authorities from the petitioners. The authorities may adopt such proc edure as they may deem fit appropriate for the purpose of the aforesaid enquiry. on stands disposed of. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petiti