SMTI ARCHANA CHOUDHURY vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education

Department.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a LDA under the Non-Formal and Adult Education Department of the Government of Assam and he

worked as such in the Jallah Block w.e.f. 01.05.1990. The Non-Formal Education was introduced by the Government of Assam under certain

Central Government Scheme. It is the stand of the State respondent authorities that upon discontinuance of the scheme, the Non-Formal and Adult

Education Department of the Government of Assam was abolished on and from 01.04.2001. Subsequently, the service of the petitioner was

adjusted as a LDA in the Inspectorate level under the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam. The said adjustment was made by the order

dated 21.02.2003 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education Department.

In this writ petition, the petitioner claims for his salary and allowance for the intervening period between 01.04.2001 up to 28.02.2003 when he

was so adjusted as a LDA in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam.

The claim of the petitioner has been resisted by Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Assam by

referring to an earlier order dated 17.07.2013 of this Court in WP(C) No.488/2007. In the said order, in respect of a similarly situated person,

this Court had recorded that the respondents therein had not received any services from the concerned petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2001 up to

19.01.2005 when the concerned petitioner was adjusted as a Sub Inspector of Schools at Barpeta. Accordingly, by the order of 17.07.2013, the

contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the claim of the petitioner therein for salary was unjustified and that his past services cannot be

counted for any other purpose except for pensionary benefit was accepted by this Court.

In a related writ appeal being WA No.248/2013 against the said order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench in its judgment dated

13.11.2013 arrived at a conclusion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is sound and proper and that the petitioner therein would be

entitled only to continuity of his previous service rendered in the Non- Formal Education scheme to be recounted for the purpose of pensionary

benefit only and not for the purpose of payment of any arrear salary.

In view of the aforesaid pronouncement by the learned Single Judge as well as up held by the learned Division Bench, the claim of the petitioner

for arrear salary in this case also has to be examined to the context as to whether during the intervening period from 01.04.2001 up to

28.02.2003, the petitioner is entitled to arrear salary. Accordingly, a relevant consideration would be as to whether during the intervening period,

the services of the petitioner was utilized by the respondent authorities or not.

To that extent, an affidavit in opposition has been filed by the Director of Non-Formal and Adult Education, Assam, wherein in paragraph-10 it

had been stated that although the petitioner was released from her earlier post in the Directorate of Non-Formal and Adult Education, Assam on

28.02.2003, but she did not render any service during the period from 01.04.2001 to 28.02.2003 as the Non-Formal Scheme was abolished on

01.04.2001.

In view of such categorical statement by the respondent authorities that the petitioner had not actually worked during the period from

01.04.2001 to 28.02.2003, the factual matrix of the present case is also same as that in WP(C) No.488/2007. Therefore, by following the

judgment and order dated 17.07.2013 in WP(C) No.488/2007, which had been affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 13.11.2013 in

WA No.248/2013, the claim for arrear salary of the petitioner from 01.04.2001 to 28.02.2003 stands rejected . In terms of the above, the writ

petition stands closed.