WP(C) 1094/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. D as, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council (hereafter referred t o as the Council). The petitioners’ grievance relates to non-payment of their salar y from the month of July 2006 their services notwithstanding till date. Their pl eaded case in brief is that in response to an advertisement dated 7/7/1999 by th e Sub-Divisional Elementary Education Advisory Board, Nalbari for filling up of vacant posts of Assistant L.P./M.E./M.V./M.E.M./Senior Basic/Junior Basic Assist ant School Teachers in the then BAC Area, they offered their candidature therefo r as they were qualified to be appointed as L.P. School teachers. According to t hem, they were on the culmination of the process duly selected and were appointe d by orders dated 3/12/1999 and 4/12/1999 passed by the Deputy Inspector of Scho ols, Nalbari in several L.P. Schools within the BAC Area. The petitioners accord ingly joined their posts. Though initially they were offered fixed pay of Rs. 90 0/- per month, considering their satisfactory performance, their posts were conv erted into non-plan category and they were sanctioned regular scale of pay of Rs . 3130/- to Rs. 6600/- per month. Their service books were duly opened and they were also allotted GPF accounts by the Accountant General (A and E), Assam. Some of them were also subjected to transfers. Their salary having been withheld fro m the month of July, 2006, they are before this Court. Mr. Nath has argued that as the petitioners had been recruited t o existent vacant post after a duly conducted selection and have been rendering their services without any blemish continuously without any break, the action of withholding their salary is without any conceivable justification and, therefor e, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued to the respondents to remedy their grie vance. In reply Mr. Das has contended that in the meantime the petition ers have been served with notices requiring them to show cause as to why on the ground as mentioned therein their services should not be terminated. As the peti tioners have already submitted their reply and a process is underway, no relief as prayed for be granted at this stage, he urged. To endorse his arguments, Mr. Das has relied on the order dated 1/12/2008 of this Court passed in WP(C) 4302/2 008, Smt. Anima Boro and others versus The State of Assam and others. The writ petition per se affirm the assertion made on behalf of the Council that a show cause notice dated 19/7/2008 has been received by the pe titioners to which they have submitted their reply. Being seized with a similar situation, this Court, by order dated 1/12/2008 passed in Smt. Anima Boro and ot hers supra, had declined the prayer for a direction for payment of salary in arr ears from July, 2006 to the petitioners therein, thereby permitting the Council to complete the process initiated by them on the basis of the show cause notice with the observation that if the appointments of the petitioners are found to be legal and valid they would be entitled and hence paid their salary. The Council was left at liberty to take appropriate action in case the determination was ad verse to the petitioners. Having regard to the rival pleas, I do not consider that a diffe rent course need be adopted by this Court in the attending facts and circumstanc es. The Council, in the above premise, would complete the exercise started with the show cause notices as above and take an appropriate decision depending on th e outcome thereof as indicated in Smt. Anima Boro and others, supra. As the peti tioners are waiting in expectation, the Council would expedite the process and c omplete the same at the earliest. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.