Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010247732025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6680/2025 KHUDEJA BEGUM W/O- LATE JALAL UDDIN, R/O- VILL.- TARINIPUR, P.O. SAILTECH, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788801. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS RERPESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN- 781019. 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE CACHAR SILCHAR. 5:THE HEADMASTER TARINIPUR HIGH SCHOOL CACHAR Page No.# 2/7 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK, MS F BEGUM,MR. N BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR A CHAKRABARTY, (FOR R.-5),MS B MAHANTA, (FOR R.-5),SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. S Banik, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. F Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education and Mr. A Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-release of salary for the period from February 2024 to 31.08.2024 during which time the petitioner had rendered her services as a Junior Assistant in Tarinipur High School in the district of Cachar. 3. The petitioner’s services were provincialised as a Junior Assistant by order dated 20.08.2013. The order of provincialisation of service of the writ petitioner was assailed by one Saleha Begum Laskar who was also working as a LDA at the same institution. The writ petition being W.P(C) No 2428/2016 filed by Saleha Begam Laskar ultimately came to be allowed by Judgment and order dated 16.06.2023 whereby the following directions were issued by the Court: “37. The records which has been produced by Ms. Terangpi, the learned Standing Page No.# 3/7 Counsel for the Department is the records forwarded by the School Authorities through the Office of the Inspector of Schools, Cachar. The very act of filing a common affidavit-in-opposition by the School Authorities along with the respondent no. 8 in the first writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 1651/2015 would prima facie demonstrate that the stand of the School Authorities cannot be stated to be a neutral one as apparently the School Authorities have taken the side of the respondent no. 8. Of course, the School Authorities would have all the rights to defend his action but while doing so, the School Authorities have merged their stand with that of the respondent no. 8 by filing a common affidavit which itself creates a serious doubt on the neutral conduct of the School Authorities. Juxtaposed, there is no doubt regarding the qualification and eligibility of the petitioner for consideration of provincialisation of her service. 39. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order of provincialisation of the respondent no. 8 is not backed by the sanction of law and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, it is directed that the case of the petitioner be considered afresh in accordance with the Rules and the process be finalized expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy.” 4. The said Judgment came to be assailed by the present writ petitioner in W.A No. 100/2024 which also came to be dismissed and the judgment and order dated 16.06.2023 of the learned Single Judge was sustained. No further appeal was preferred before the Apex Court. 5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench which was upheld by the writ appellate Court interfering with the provincialisation of the services of the writ petitioner, she is entitled to the salary from the management of the School for the period she had undergone services being the period of February, 2024 to 31.08.2024. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that while the petitioner’s provincialisation was interfered with but his services were not interfered with. 6. The learned State Counsel submits that in terms of the order passed by the Co- Page No.# 4/7 ordinate Bench upheld by the writ appellate Court, the writ petitioner was not entitled to get salary from the State if the School Management is required to pay the salary, they may do so as per the provision of law. 7. Mr. A Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the School Management as well as the Head Master refers to the communication dated 15.02.2024 which was issued by the Director of Secondary Education to the Inspector of Schools, CDC, Cachar directing that the salary of the writ petitioner be kept on hold with immediate effect as per the order dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.P(C) No. 2428/2016. It is submitted that it is because of this communication issued, the direction issued by the Director of Secondary Education to the Inspector of Schools that the salary could not be released. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the limited prayer of the writ petitioner is that the salary for the period which she has rendered services from February 2024 to 31.08.2024 be granted by the authority namely the School Management Committee and the Head Master. 9. A careful perusal of the Judgment and order dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.P(C) No. 2428/2016 reveals that the provincialisation of the writ petitioner was interfered with and directions were issued to take fresh steps for provincialisation of the petitioner therein and this order was came to be upheld by the writ appellate Court in W.A No. 100/2024. 10. As per the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions Page No.# 5/7 (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, the State provincialises the services of the employees of a venture educational institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the particulars specified in the Schedules appended to the Rules.. The effect of provincialiasation is that the employees are brought within the service of Government and they became Government Servants and salaries and all service benefits are released by the Government. Till the time they are provincialised, the salaries are only paid by the School Management Committee. While the present petitioner’s provincialistion was put to challenge by filing petition being W.P(C) No. 2428/2016. There is no challenge made to the termination of service or seeking a direction for termination of service. Consequently, no such direction was issued by the Co-ordinate Bench. The specific direction was that the Court interfered with the provincialisation of service of the present writ petitioner which came to be upheld by the Writ Appellate Court. The position under the Rules would be that the with effect from the date of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the petitioner is no longer is the Government Servant and/or responsibility of the State Authorities for payment of salaries however if she is found to be working or rendering her services in the said concerned school, her salaries and other service benefits are required to be released by the School Authorities as was done prior to her provincialisation. 11. Since there is no specific direction for termination of the services of the writ petitioner, the communication dated 15.02.2024 issued by the Director of Secondary Education to the Inspector of Schools to hold or withhold the salaries of the present Page No.# 6/7 writ petitioner with immediate effect in terms of the order dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.P(C) No 2428/2016. It cannot by any stretch of understanding of the provincialisation Rules be understood that the salary required to be paid by the School Management for the services rendered by the petitioner for the period February, 2024 to 31.08.2024 are also required to be withheld. Pursuant to the orders of the Court, the petitioner’s provincialisation having been cancelled and she was no longer Government Servant and therefore, the State was not required to release her any further payment form the Government exchequer but since her services were never terminated by the Court, there was no occasion for the Director, Secondary Education to issue any order which could be construed to be an order by the school authorities for withholding her salary in her capacity as Junior Assistant who was still an employee of the institution. 12. 12. Under such circumstances, this writ petition stands disposed of. It is directed that the respondent authorities namely the School authorities will release her arrear pay and salary for the services rendered from February 2024 to 31.08.2024 and the communication dated 15.02.2024 to withhold the salary by the school authorities shall not be construed to be a restraint for the school authorities to release the pay and salary of the petitioner for the period February 2024 to 31.08.2024 subject to the records of the school showing that she had worked for the said period. 13 Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No order as to the cost. Interim order if any stands vacated. Page No.# 7/7 JUDGE Comparing Assistant