Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010053842025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1628/2025 KHALILUR RAHMAN AND ANR ASSISTANT TEACHER, SWAHID CHANDAN SINGH HIGH SCHOOL. MAJARATI, P.O. TOWN MAJARATI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. PIN-782002 2: SHAHAJAHAN ALI ASSTT TEACHER MEHERIPAR M.E. SCHOOL KALIDINGA P.O. KALIDINGA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. PIN-78212 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM (FINANCE) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 4:THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER NAGAON DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NAGAON P.O. NAGAON. DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM 6:THE HEAD MISTRESS SWAHID CHANDAN SINGH HIGH SCHOOL P.O. TOWN MAJARATI PIN 782002 DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 7:THE HEADMASTER MAHERIPAR ME SCHOOL P.O. KALIDINGA PIN-782124 DIST. NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Z HAMMAD, MR E AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, FINANCE DEPTT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 24.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioners were irregularly appointed as Teachers during 1991 – 1996. Thereafter their services were regularized as Assistant Teachers, vide order dated 07.02.2000 in Udmari M.E. School and Dakhin Baguriguri M.E. School. 2. The petitioners’ case is that they have not been paid arrear salary w.e.f. 01.06.1996 to 07.01.2003. Page No.# 3/4 3. Ms. S. Chutia and Ms. R.M. Barooah, learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that the writ petition suffers from laches and delay and accordingly should be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. A perusal of the writ petition shows that there is no document to show when the petitioners were appointed and to which school they were appointed and by whom they were appointed. There is also nothing to show as to what pay was to be given to them at the time of their appointments. Further, the petitioners having apparently worked in different schools, the cause of action of both the petitioners appears to be different. 6. The above being said, the petitioner no.1 has stated in his affidavit dated 10.03.2025 that he was 50 years of age. If the petitioner no.1 had been appointed as a teacher in 1991, then he would have been 16 years of age at the time of his appointment as a teacher. The writ petition is woefully short of particulars and documents in support of the petitioners’ case history. 7. In the case of Union of India & Others vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and Harendra Chandra Nath vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2013 (2) GLT 1094, the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court have held that there is no right to recover arrears beyond 3 (three) years from the date of filing of the original writ petition. In the present case the petitioners have made a claim for payment of arrear salary for a period of over Page No.# 4/4 30 years, prior to the date of fling of the writ petition. 8. In view of the enormous delay and laches in filing the writ petition and keeping in view the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is not inclined to exercise it’s discretion in the present case. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant