Abdur Rahman Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010186572022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6033/2022

¶5

NIRMAL CHANDRA DAS SON OF LATE JATINDRA MAHAN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- APIN, P.O.- RONGPUR BOALIPAR, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151. 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶9

KATLICHERRA EDUCATION BLOCK HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788161

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H BARBHUIYA, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS,MR. M

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

KHAN,MS R RAJKHOWA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU,

¶14

Linked Case : WP(C)/6035/2022

¶15

ABDUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER S/O- NOZIB ALI MAZUMDER R/O- VILL- RATANPUR PT-II P.O. RATANPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KATLICHERRA EDUCATION BLOCK HAILAKANDII ASSAM PIN- 788161 -----------Advocate for : MR. I H BARBHUIYA Advocate for : SC EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶16

Page No.# 3/5

¶17

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶18

ORDER

¶19

11.09.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondents.

¶21

2. By this common order, it is proposed to dispose of two writ petitions, being WP(C) Nos.6033/2022 and 6035/2022.

¶22

3. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, both the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to release the current as well as arrear salary to the petitioner, who has been serving as Tutor in the Dinonathpur M.E. School in Hailakandi district in terms of the provincialization order, dated 05.02.2021, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam.

¶23

4. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in WP(C) No.6033/2022, was appointed on 03.01.2002, as Head Teacher of Horizon Basti Gautom Roy M.E. School, Hailakandi by the Managing Committee of the said school and he joined on 03.01.2002, and the petitioner in WP(C) No.6035/2022, was appointed on 22.11.2004, as Assistant Teacher of Horizon Basti Gautom Roy M.E. School, Hailakandi by the Managing Committee of the said school and he joined on 24.11.2004. The services of both the petitioners were approved by the District Elementary Education Officer on 15.03.2011 and their names have also been included in the DISE Code of the school for the year 2009-10. Subsequently, on 05.02.2021, the services of both the petitioners as Tutor were provincialized, in terms of the provision of Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 and posted them at Dinonathpur M.E. School, Hailakandi and both the petitioners joined on 08.02.2021.

¶24

5. Mr. Khan further submits that after provincialization of services of both the

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

petitioners, the same has been put to challenge by another Assistant Teacher, namely, Suporna Singha Choudhury and accordingly, this Court vide order dated 14.06.2022 in WP(C) No.1092/2021 was pleased to dispose of the same by directing the writ petitioner of the said writ petition, if so advised, to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Elementary Education Department with regard to her claim for provincialization of her service. But, the respondent authorities have not been releasing their salary in spite of a representation, dated 26.07.2022, being filed by both the petitioners.

¶27

6. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition being filed by the respondent authorities, Mr. Khan submits that the salary of both the the petitioners was not released on the ground that while issuing notice in the WP(C) No.1092/2021, vide order dated 24.02.2021, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order directing that the provincialization of the respondent No.6, namely, Nirmal Chandra Das and respondent No.7, namely, Abdur Rahman Mazumdar shall not be given effect to, until further order and in compliance of the said order, the salary has not yet been released by the respondent authorities.

¶28

7. Mr. Khan also pointed out that though vide final order dated 14.06.2022, the Commissioner & Secretary was directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, namely, Suporna Singha Choudhury within a period of 90 days, yet, more than 3 years elapsed since then and the respondent authorities have not been disposing of the said appeal.

¶29

8. Referring to the final order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1092/2021 dated 14.06.2022, Mr. Khan also submits that the said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 14.06.2022, directing the petitioner of the said writ petition, namely, Suporna Singha Choudhury to file an appeal before the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, in Elementary Education Department, with a direction to dispose of the same within a period of 90 days and as such, the interim order passed by this Court dated 24.02.2021, stands merged with the final order dated 14.06.2022, and such the interim order of stay is no longer operating and denial of salary on that ground is arbitrary and illegal and under such circumstances, Mr. Khan has contended to allow both the petitions.

¶30

9. Mr. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities has not

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

controverted the submission so advanced by Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that the appeal is still pending.

¶33

10. It is an admitted fact that the salary of the petitioners has not been released on account of the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1092/2021, dated 24.02.2021, but the said writ petition has already been disposed of vide final order dated 14.06.2022 and it is well settled that the interim order always stands merged with the final order. Since the said writ petition has been disposed of, the interim order passed earlier is no longer operating and the appeal filed by Suporna Singha Choudhury has also not been disposed of for more than 3 years.

¶34

11. It is to be noted here that the salary and pensions are considered earned financial rights and all protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and arbitrary withholding of these payments is deemed a violation of constitutional property right. Denial of salary directly impacts on individual's quality of life.

¶35

12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondent authorities in denying the salary and other service benefits of the petitioner(s), pursuant to their provincialization order dated 05.02.2021, is illegal and arbitrary and the same fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. Under such circumstances, it is provided that the respondent authorities shall release the current and arrear salary of both the petitioners, forthwith, with effect from the date of provincialization of their service, within a period of 3(three) weeks, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Both the petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from today.

¶36

13. In terms of above, both these writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶37

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Abdur Rahman Mazumder v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdur Rahman Mazumder v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Alakesh Mazumdar and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Abu Khayer Sk Vs Suranjana Senapati

Mr Diganta Biswas Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nirmal Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sheikh Habibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mrityunjay Barman Vs the State of Assam and Ors.