AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for the authorities under the
Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Ms. RB Bora, learned counsel for the authorities under the Education Department of
the BTC as well as Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, being the authorities under the Finance Department, Government of
Assam.
Without going into the details of the claims made in this writ petition, we take note of that it is a common grievance of all the writ petitioners that
they were appointed as a stipendiary teachers sometime in the year 1995. They received their stipendiary allowances upto 2011. Thereafter they are
not receiving their stipendiary allowances. Raising the said grievance, this writ petition is instituted.
Although we are unable to accept the joint petition being filed by 13 numbers of writ petitioners inasmuch as, the respective petitioners would have
their independent legal rights to claim the arrear stipendiary allowances, but Mr. A Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners for the purpose
of this writ petition insists on a limited prayer to the extent that the petitioners be allowed to file individual representations before the Director of
Education BTC for redressal of their grievances. The petitioners also make a claim for provincialisation of their services.
In view of such limited prayer of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition stands disposed of by requiring the 13 writ
petitioners to file their independent representations before the Director of Education BTC claiming their rights to receive the stipendiary allowances as
was given to them up to the year 2011. Upon such individual representations being submitted, the Director of Education BTC shall pass separate
reasoned orders on the same within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the individual representations.
We clarify the aspect that by requiring the Director of Education BTC to pass a reasoned order on the representations of the writ petitioners, we do
not in any manner indicate that the claim of the writ petitioners have been directed to be allowed by this Court. What we require is that the Director
shall look into the records and the facts and circumstances of the individual cases and pass his own independent order.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.