Judgment · High Court

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE UB SAHA The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners, 3 in nos. who were appoin ted as LP School Teachers on different dates in between the year 1988 and 1989 a nd thereafter the posts of the petitioners were converted into non-planned schem e pursuant to order issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam dated 27th August, 2007 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) wherein it is stated that Sc hool wise break-up of posts of LP School Teachers of Tengakhat Ele. Block who dr aw their salaries through Naharkatia Treasury retained vide the Director of Ele. Edn. Assams’ No. EE (Plan) 60/2000/Pt-V/383-A dated 07.07.2007 for the period w .e.f. 01.03.2007 to 29.02.2008 under Non-plan in the usual scale of pay & allowa nces under the rules in force. Since then the petitioners were drawing their sal aries without any breakup till March, 2009. Thereafter, all on a sudden the mont hly salary of the petitioners were stopped by the respondents on the basis of a news item published in different newspapers stating that some teachers under Ten ghakhat Elementary Education Block have been drawing their salary from governmen t treasury without attending schools. On the basis of the said allegation an inq uiry was conducted by the respondents and the petitioners were also asked to pro duce the relevant service records before the authority which they did. Yet the r espondents did not release the current salary as well as the arrear salary of th e petitioners from April, 2009 to till date. Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. MR Patha k, learned standing counsel for the Education Department who submits that in ter ms of the order of this Court dated 24.01.2011 he received instructions from the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Assam, who has by this time written a le tter o the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh under whose jurisdiction the p etitioners are working to submit a detailed report as to why the petitioners are not getting their salary. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid posi tion, it would be proper to direct the present petitioners to file a representat ion before the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, respondent No. 2 herein, s tating their grievances and if such representation is filed then the respondent No. 2 would be in a position to take up the matter with the Block Elementary Edu cation Officer, who is supposed to release the salary of the petitioners. As proposed by Mr. Pathak, Mr. Mahmud agreed for disposal of the entire writ pet ition at this stage with a simple direction to the petitioners for filing a writ ten representation to the respondent No. 2 stating their grievance and the respo ndent No. 2 also may be directed to dispose of the same by a reasoned order also to direct the Block Elementary Education Officer to release the current salary as well as the arrear salary of the petitioners, in accordance with law. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record s, it appears from Annexure-11, 12 and 13 to the writ petition that the petition ers had already discharged their duties but even after due discharge of their du ties, they have not been provided their salary by the authority in time. And not only that, the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh vide his letter dated 16.06. 2010 requested the Block Elementary Education Officer to take steps in accordanc e with the Rules but the Block Elementary Education Officer did not take any ac tion on the basis of the said letter. However, according to this Court, it would meet justice if the petitioners are d irected to submit separate representations before the respondent No. 2, Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara along with the order of this Court, within a period of ten days from today stating all their grievances and the resp ondent No. 2, upon receipt of the representation shall dispose of the same withi n a period of two months from the date of receipt of the same. Ordered accordingly. While disposing of the representations of the petitioners the respondent No. 2 s hall consider that the petitioners are not getting any salary from the month of April, 2009 to till date and as a result not only they themselves are suffering but their family members are also suffering. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach this Court, if so adv ised, if they are aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 2. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed o f.