Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010223282017 2026:GAU-AS:12161 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6776/2017 MONURAM MILI S/O. LT. MUKESHWAR MILI, VILL. ADUT GAON, P.O KHURACHUK, P.S. GOGAMUKH, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787034. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ASSAM. 3:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHEMAJI ASSAM. 4:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHEMAJI ASSAM. 5:THE TREASURY OFFICER DHEMAJI P.O. DHEMAJI ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R AKHTAR, MR.A BARUAH,MR.C BARUAH,MR.R BORO,MR.R K TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent Authorities for release of his salaries which are in arrears w.e.f. August, 2007. 3. At the outset, this Court would highlight the manner in which the respondents have delayed the adjudication of the present proceedings. Notice in this matter was issued on 17.11.2017. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 15.12.2017 and the respondents were directed to file their affidavit. The matter was thereafter, listed on 29.01.2018, 21.02.2018, 14.03.2018, 09.04.2018, 03.10.2018, 24.01.2020, 31.01.2020, 18.10.2023, 21.12.2023, 10.06.2024, 17.02.2025. On all the said dates, Page No.# 3/7 baring 14.03.2018 and 31.01.2020, the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents, seeking time to file affidavits. The present writ petition is pending since 2017, and till date no affidavit has been filed in the matter. Accordingly, this Court would proceed to consider the issues arising in the present writ petition by applying the principle of non traverse. 4. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Ming Mang Badatipur L.P. School vide an order dated 19.12.1989. The petitioner joined his services on 23.12.1989. The petitioner further projects that his services were regularized vide an order dated 06.06.1995 w.e.f. 01.06.1992. The petitioner was also permitted to cross the efficiency bar and also a GPF account was opened in his name. Accordingly, the petitioner projects that he was continuing in his services as regular teacher. However, salaries of the petitioner was stopped from the month of July 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 11.04.2013, requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his appointment shall not be treated as illegal and void ab initio, on the ground that his service was terminated on 18.05.1992. The petitioner submitted his reply, thereto, on in the month of May, 2013, and therein, Page No.# 4/7 categorically denied of being served with any order dated 18.05.1992, terminating his services. The respondents are not found to have thereafter, proceeded with the matter and no order is found to be issued determining the continuation in service by the petitioner to be illegal. The petitioner further projects that while he was so continuing as an Assistant Teacher, the Respondent Authorities vide an order dated 05.02.2000, had also attached his services as the Headmaster of Adut Azar Chapori Primary School for a particular period of time. The petitioner further projects that he continued in his services as an Assistant Teacher and had retired from his services in the year, 2017. The salaries of the petitioner not having been released, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 5. Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for the respondents, has placed on record instructions dated 20.12.2023, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, wherein, the only projections made was that all the documents relating to the matter was available with the Government. It was further contended that the petitioner was not approved by the Government for accommodation. Mr, Phukan, further submits that the above are the only instructions available with him the matter. Page No.# 5/7 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner in the present writ petition had clearly made categorical contentions to the effect that after his initial appointment effected vide the order dated 19.12.1989, he had continued in his services regularly till the date of his superannuation. It was further projected that no order issued towards terminating the services of the petitioner was ever served upon him. The petitioner also has projected that in pursuance to a notice issued to him on 11.04.2013, the petitioner had submitted his reply, thereto, and therein, had raised a categorical contention to the effect that no such termination order was served upon the petitioner. 8. As noticed, hereinabove, although repeated adjournments were taken in the matter by the respondent authorities, for filing of an affidavit, no affidavit has been filed in the matter. The instructions placed before this Court by the Director of Elementary Education Department, Assam, to Mr. A. Phukan, which has been furnished to this Court, on perusal, this Court finds that the only contention, therein, is that the original documents related to the matter are available with the Government. Page No.# 6/7 9. As is the common practice, the learned Standing Counsel for various Departments, not only represent the Directorate but also the concerned Government, which in the present case is the Department of School Education. It is not understood as to why the instructions requisite in the matter from the Government, was not permissible to be so issued to the learned Standing Counsel so as to place the same before this Court. The conduct of the Department in the present proceedings, leaves much to be wanted. The sole reason for pendency of the present writ petition is the inability of the respondents to place on record their stand in the matter promptly. The said feature which is now becoming a common aspect in most of the cases, is not in the interest of dispensation of justice by this Court. This Court leaves the matter at that. 10. Considering the projections made in the present writ petition and there being no denial of the same, the contentions so made are held to be correct and not disputed. Accordingly, the Respondent Authorities are directed to compute the salaries receivable by the petitioner from August 2007, till the date of his superannuation and release the same to the petitioner within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, the Page No.# 7/7 petitioner having retired from his services, the petitioner is held to be entitled to be authorized his pension and pensionary benefits. 11. With the above observation and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 12. A copy of the instructions furnished by Mr. A. Phukan, is kept on record and marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification. JUDGE Comparing Assistant