WP(C) 2111/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learne d Standing Counsel appears for official respondents. 2 The petitioner was appointed on 1.6.1977 by the Managing Committee of th e Katirail M.E. School, Cachar District, when the school was at the venture stag e. While the school was provincialized on 1.3.1978, the petitioner’s service was not regularized. But subsequently w.e.f. 1.12.1986, his service was regularized by considering him to be a dropped teacher. The petitioner challenges the Gove rnment decisions dated 14.9.2004 (Annexure-J) and 3.11.2004 (Annexure-K), whereb y his claim for arrear salary benefit w.e.f. 1.3.1978 to 30.11.1986 was held to be unjustified. 3.1 The petitioner claims that a proposal was mooted on 7.5.1997 by the then Director of Elementary Education (DEE), Assam for sanctioning arrear salary to the petitioner from 1.3.1978 to 30.11.1986, by adjusting him in a vacant post o f another school and accordingly the learned Counsel contends that direction sho uld be given for granting the arrear salary, through the recommended process of adjustment. 3.2 The learned Counsel also cites the example of one Shri Ahmodul Haque Bor bhuyan of Katirail M.E. School, who allegedly was granted the arrear pay benef it, for demanding the same benefit for the petitioner. 4.1 For the respondents, Mr. Goswami submits that as per the Government poli cy decision, regularization of the dropped teachers can’t be considered retrospe ctively and this policy decision is affirmed by this, Court through its judgment in Civil Rule No. 1571/1998 (Jiban Ch. Deka and others vs. State of Assam and o thers) reported in 2008 (3) GLT 229. 4.2 The Standing Counsel refers to Rule 5 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) to show that since the petitioner had not put in 2 years continuous service immediately preceding the provincialization of the school on 1.3.1978, he has no right to c laim regularization from a retrospective date. 4.3 It is finally submitted that in the absence of a regular vacant post in the concerned school, it would not be justified to consider a claim for arrear s alary, since regularization order can have only prospective effect, in accordanc e with the policy decision reflected in Clause (i) of the Government Notificati on dated 13.1.2003. 5. Upon examination of the provisions of Rule 5(3) of the Rules and the co nditions incorporated in the policy notification of 13.1.2003 and taking note of the judgment in Jiban Ch. Deka (supra), I feel that no interference is require d to be made with the impugned order(s) dated 14.9.2004 and 3.11.2004, as servic e benefit for the petitioner can’t be retrospective, but only from the date of t he regularization. 6. However the petitioner at this stage submits that, since a Committee is constituted by the Government, in pursuant to the decision in Sudhendu Mohan Tal ukdar vs State of Assam reported in 2006 (2) GLT 216, the claim for arrear salar y may be referred for consideration of this Committee. 7. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned decision(s), the peti tioner is permitted to apply for consideration before the constituted Committee through the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of E ducation (Elementary) Department. On receipt of the representation, the Commissi oner would facilitate the consideration of the petitioner’s claim for arrear sal ary, by the Committee constituted under this Court’s order in Sudhendu Mohan Tal ukdar (supra). 8. The case is disposed of with the above observation and direction without any order of cost.