WP(C) 6063/2006 BEFORE HONBLE MR JUSTICE PK MUSAHARY The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by non payment of their s alary for different months between the period 1999-2003 and seek a writ of manda mus to the respondents for the disbursement thereof. I have heard Ms P. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms A. Verma, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department of the State of Assam. Shortly put, the petitioners’ pleaded case is that, they had been appointed in different posts under various projects of the Adult Education Scheme of the Gove rnment of Assam during 1978 and 1999.They contend that though they were initi ally appointed under the plan scheme in the year 2003, they were soon brought under the non plan scheme. Though the District Education Officer, Darrang Mongal doi by his letter dated 20.5.2006 addressed to the Director, Non Formal & Adult Education, Assam requested him to make necessary proposal for the funds for re lease of their salary, nothing precious was done on that. Their repeated appea ls to the respondent authorities having failed to evoke any 2 response, the petitioners have approached this Court. The Director, Non Formal & Adult Education, Assam in his affidavit has disclo sed that for making payment of the arrear salary of the petitioners for the pe riod 1999-2003 as claimed, together with the arrear Dearness Allowances (to be deposited in their respective GPF Account) , sanction for a total amount of Rs .11,23,417/- has been sought for from the government and that as soon as the sa me is accorded, their dues would be released. In the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam , Education (Secondary) Department, the receipt of the proposal for the aforesa id amount from the Directorate of Non Formal and Adult Education, Assam is adm itted ,but it has been averred that in absence of any provision in the budget f or the year 2007-2008 , disbursement thereof was not feasible. The answering re spondent has stated that as such a decision has been taken to make necessary pro vision therefor in the present financial budget for the year 2008-2009 to releas e the petitioners’ dues. Ms Barman has argued that as the petitioners’ entitlements are admitted, the de lay in payment of the arrear dues is wholly unjustified. As the respondents ha ve failed to discharge their 3 obligation in making payment of the admitted dues to the petitioners, a writ of mandamus as prayed for ought to be issued. She submits on instructions that , p ersons equally placed as the petitioners have in the meantime been released the ir dues and therefore, the indifference shown to them is arbitrary and discrimin atory. Mr Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department with reference to the wr itten instructions received by him submits that the Directorate of Non Formal a nd Adult Education, Assam as referred to above on 23.4.2008 placed before the Co mmissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education(S) Department the requ isition amongst others for an amount of Rs.11,23,417/- for payment of the petiti oners’ dues and in due course , the same would be placed before the Finance depa rtment for doing the needful. He submits that having regard to the process invol ved, some more time would be necessary before the actual disbursement . Ms Verma, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department submits that once the pr oposal referred to by Mr Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department r eaches her department there is no reason why , if the same is otherwise 4 entertainable , would not be attended to with necessary expedition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the materials available on record, this Court is of t he opinion that as the petitioners’ entitlements are not in dispute , the respon dents are obliged in law to hasten the steps for release of the amount involved to them without unnecessary delay. It is true that , having regard to the unavoidable bureaucratic, some delay is indispensable. However, it is expected that the concerned respondent authorities would show necessary alacrity in the matter and ensure early disbursement of t he aforesaid sum to the petitioners to redress their grievance. On a balancing of the relevant factors, this Court considers that a time limit of three(3) months for the completion of the process is adequate. The state re spondents involved would therefore make all possible endeavours to meet the de adline and cause the aforementioned amount of Rs. 11,23,417/- to be released to the petitioners. This Court parts with the belief that the respondent aut horities would implement this order in its true letter and spirit so that no oc casion arises in future for any allegation of deliberate non compliance thereo f. 5 The petition stands allowed in the above terms. A copy of this order be furnishe d to Mr Mr A. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department as well Ms A. Verma, learned Standing counsel, Finance department so as enable them to do the needful from their end. No costs.