Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010023712025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/814/2025 SRI CHAKRADHAR BASUMATARY S/O GAJEN BASUMATARY, VILLAGE DOBGAON PART II, KHASIBARI NEAR SAI COMPLEX, P.S KOKRAJHAR, DISTRICT KOKRAJHAR (B.T.A.D), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT ASSAM , EDUCATION (ELEMENTRY ) DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 6:THE HEADMASTER LABANYA LP SCHOOL ULTAPANI KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM 78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A IKBAL, MS. J SARMA,MS. M NATH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 03.12 .2025 Heard Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Chutia, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, BTC, appearing for the respondent Nos.3—5. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to release the arrear salary along with current salary. 3. Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, on 20.01.2015. The petitioner joined his service and he was posted at 317 No. Khargaon L.P. School. Thereafter, he was transferred to Labanyapur L.P. School, under Kokrajhar Block. After joining in the said school, the petitioner received continuous threat from local organizations, politicians and some unknown persons of the said locality, for which the petitioner could not attend the school and subsequently, he was attacked by the said persons and since the month of September, 2016 onward, he could not attend the school, but on improvement of the situation, he joined w.e.f. 16.08.2022 and in spite of the service being rendered by him regularly, he has not been paid salary till date. The Page No.# 3/5 petitioner has also filed one representation on 22.10.2024, but the same has failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities and under such circumstances, Mr. Ikbal has contended to allow this petition by directing the respondent authorities to pay the arrear and current salary of the petitioner. 4. The respondent No.4, the District Elementary Education Officer has filed one affidavit-in-opposition on 24.09.2025, and one additional affidavit on 21.11.2025. In the affidavit-in-opposition dated 24.09.2025, it is stated that as per attendance report, the petitioner was not regular in duty and absent for many days and under pressure exerted by the petitioner, the Headmaster of Labanyapur L.P. School has issued one certificate on 29.09.2023, which was prepared by the petitioner himself and that the petitioner was not under threat from any local organizations or politicians or other unknown persons and the petitioner has neither communicated in writing to the Education Department till today nor he lodged any FIR with the police and he remained unauthorizedly absent since 01.09.2016 to October, 2023 without any reason and an enquiry was conducted by the Education Department and the petitioner was found absent unauthorizedly for 1088 days, without authorized leave and the monthly salary of the petitioner was stopped from the month of April, 2018 onward. 5. The respondent No.4 has one the additional affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner did not submit any representation in between 2018 till October, 2024 for resumption of duties and the petitioner is not entitled to salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The respondent No.4 has filed another additional affidavit on 03.12.2025, wherein it is stated that as per FR-17(1) of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules (FR&SR), an officer, who is absent from duty, without any authority, shall not be entitled to pay and allowances during the period of such absence and that the petitioner herein remained absent unauthorizedly since the year 2018 till 16.08.2022 and the petitioner himself admitted having rejoined his classes on 16.08.2022 and as such, the question of payment of salary during the period of unauthorized absence, does not arise as per the Page No.# 4/5 principle of 'no work no pay'. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel for the respondent BTC, submits that in view of the stand taken by the respondent BTC in paragraph No.6 of the additional affidavit dated 03.12.2025, this present petition may be disposed of. Mr. Bhuyan has also produced one order dated 26.11.2025, passed by the Director of Education, Kokrajhar, dealing with the petitioner's claim and it is stated that the petitioner is found absent w.e.f. March, 2018 and in the said order, it is indicated that under FR-17(1), the petitioner cannot be paid salary for the absent period in view of the principle of 'no work no pay'. 7. In reply, Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondent authorities are not willing to pay the salary for the period of his absence, which is not attributable to him, but due to constant threat received by him, yet, from the date of his re-joining i.e. 16.08.2022, he shall be paid salary and this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to pay salary to him w.e.f. 16.08.2022. 8. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 26.11.2025, issued by the Director of Education, which is produced before the Court today by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the BTC and also gone through the additional affidavit dated 03.12.2025, specially the paragraph No.6. 9. It is stated in the paragraph No.6 that the petitioner was absent in unauthorized manner from his service till 16.08.2022, and further, the petitioner himself admitted in his petition that he rejoined his classes on 16.08.2022, and as such, the question of payment of salary, during the period of unauthorized absence, does not arise as per the principle of 'no work no pay'. 10. It is also to be noted here that in Annexure-XIV, at page No.42 of the petition, in the representation dated 22.10.2024, addressed to the Block Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar, the petitioner has stated that he resumed his service from 16.08.2022 Page No.# 5/5 and prior to that he could not attend the school due to continuous threat from local politicians and other unknown, but powerful persons. But, the petitioner has failed to substantiate the same by producing any proof. Neither he had reported the matter to the higher authority nor he had reported the matter of receiving threat to police. However, Mr. Ikbal submits that the respondent may be directed to pay the salary w.e.f. 16.08.2022. 11. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also in view of the facts admitted by both the parties that the petitioner resumed his duties on 16.08.2022, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to pay the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.08.2022. 12. The aforementioned exercise shall have to be carried out within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and shall be tagged with the record. The document, specially the order dated 26.11.2025, produced by Mr. Bhuyan, shall be marked as Flag-'A' and be tagged with the record. 13. Though, Mr. Ikbal submits that the respondents may be directed to pay interest upon the salary of the petitioner, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Dr. J.K. Goel, reported in (1995) Supp (3) SCC 161, this Court is not inclined to accede to such a submission in view of the given factual matrix of the case in hand. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE