Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010173562016 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5587/2016 SWAPNA BORAH and 8 ORS. ASSTT. TEACHER, BAHBARI GAON L.P. SCHOOL, P.O. BEKADALANG, SONARI, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY., GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J HATIMURIA, MR.M KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE, SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 05-06-2025 Heard Shri M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education. 2. In view of the subsequent developments, it may not be required to go deep into the dispute raised by means of this present petition. Page No.# 2/4 3. Suffice it to mention that these 9 nos. of petitioners had joined together in this case with a common grievance that their salaries from the month of March, 2012 were withheld. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in different L. P. Schools in the district of Sivasagar (now Chariadeo) and were discharging their duties. They also claimed to have undergone the basic training course and were provided regular scale of pay. A similar grievance had arisen regarding withholding of pay since March, 2007 when 3 of the petitioners had filed WP(C)/6169/2007 and this Court had passed an order dated 07.03.2008 for payment of salaries. However, as noted above, from March, 2012, the salaries have been withheld. 4. Shri Kaushik, the learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that all such appointments were found to be illegal and therefore, the matter was under consideration for some time. Ultimately, the Department took a decision to engage the incumbents as Tutors as well as Assistant Teachers, afresh which was also approved by the Cabinet. 5. The learned Standing Counsel has also informed that all such fresh engagements were further with a clause that no claim whatsoever would be made with regard to their earlier engagements. 6. Both the learned counsel for the parties have informed that in the present case, out of 9 petitioners, 2 had already attained the age of superannuation and had accordingly retired from service. However, the remaining 7 petitioners were given fresh orders of appointment incorporating the aforesaid clause. 7. Shri Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that so Page No.# 3/4 far as the two petitioners, namely Swapna Borah (petitioner no. 1) and Sri Jogeswar Likson (petitioner no. 6) are concerned, they had filed separate writ petitions with a claim for their pensionary benefits and both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by directing consideration of their cases. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that in a similar case being WP(C)/1728/2015, this Court had passed an order for consideration and payment of back wages. 9. Considering the above, so far as the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 are concerned, no effective relief can be given to them inasmuch as they have accepted the subsequent engagement with a condition and unless there is a specific challenge to such condition, they would not be entitled to maintain the present petition. However, so far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 6 are concerned, since they had superannuated from service before being offered any fresh engagement, their cases would have to be considered regarding their claim for back wages for the period which they have rendered their services. After all, the services of any citizen cannot be utilized in gratis. 10. Therefore, in continuation of the orders passed by this Court towards consideration of their claim for pension, this Court also directs that due consideration is to be made for their claim for back wages from the period when their salaries were withheld. 11. The aforesaid exercise be undertaken and concluded expeditiously and preferably within an outer limit of 60 days from today in which the petitioner would be given an opportunity to place all documents. The same be done by the respondent no. 3 - the Director of Elementary Education by passing a reasoned/speaking order. Page No.# 4/4 12. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant