WP(C) 3754/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel representing all the respondents. Since all the writ petitions, more or less raises common issues, as such the sam e are taken-up together. Also, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parti es, the same are taken-up for final disposal. WP(C) 3754/2010 has its genesis in WP(C) 3149/2008 which was instituted by the p etitioners in the said WP(C) 3754/2010 with a prayer for salary, arrear and curr ent, since August, 2010. In the said WP(C) 3149/2008 an affidavit was filed by t he Respondent No. 2 the Director of Elementary Education stating that the servic es of the petitioners have been terminated in view of the fact that the petition ers figured in the list of 178 persons who have been appointed against non-exist ing posts under the Dhakuakhana Sub-Division of Lakhimpur District. The affidavi t so filed by the Director of Elementary Education is annexed to as Annexure-58 in WP(C) 3754/2010. Having learnt of the stand of the State Respondent, the inst ant WP(C) 3754/2010 came to be instituted with prayer for quashing the orders of termination as well as for equal treatment as rendered in various writ petition s, copies of orders having been annexed as Annexure-51 to 56 in the instant proc eeding. Before proceeding further it is made clear that the orders of terminatio n are not annexed to the writ petition. The prayer for extending the benefit of the various orders passed by this Court, which are annexed as Annexure-51 to 56 in the instant proceeding, are in respect of payment of salary and allowances as well as for interference as against the orders of termination. The other three writ petitions i.e. WP(C) 3293/13, WP(C) 4211/2013 and WP(C) 5213/2013 having be en fashioned in a similar manner, comes with the additional prayer for setting a side the Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2013 whereby the petitioners therein were asked to submit explanation and to show cause as to why their appointment shou ld not be treated as illegal and void ab initio as they have been found to be ap pointed contrary to the Rules. The challenge to the said Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2013 was laid on the ground that the State Respondent was without power a nd authority to do so in view of the fact that there was an order dated 12.08.20 10 passed in WP(C) 3754/2010 whereby the respondents were directed not to distur b the services of the petitioners if found working as they claimed. According to the petitioners and on the strength of the aforesaid order dated 12.08.2010 pas sed in WP(C) 3754/2010 as well as the order dated 14.16.2013 passed in WP(C) 329 2/2013, they are in service until this date and discharging duties and functions as required of them. In so far the services of the petitioners are concerned and as to the fact wheth er they had been appointed illegally or irregularly, this Court would not ventur e to decide upon the same leaving it open for the State Respondents to proceed i n accordance with law. In so far as payment of salary and allowance is concerned and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been discharging duties as As sistant Teachers until this date, their entitlement to salary, current and arrea r, cannot be denied by the State Respondent. It is made clear that the petitione rs’ entitlement to salary for services rendered is based on the principle of Qua ntum Meruit. The petitioners are entitled to and the State Respondents are oblig ed to give arrears of salary claimed by them for the period they were actually i n service. The said claim is not based on tort but on the principle of Quantum M eruit because it is not implicit that a person serves the employer ex-gratia or that his salary is in the nature of bounty. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion t hat the petitioners in all the four writ petitions are entitled to salary, curre nt and arrear, commencing from August, 2007. As indicated above, this Court woul d not go into the merit and demerit of the Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2013 an d/or as to whether the petitioners had been legally or illegally or irregularly appointed to the respective posts, leaving it open to the State Respondents to d ecide upon it by affording adequate opportunities to the petitioners prior to ta king a decision on it. It is also made clear that in the event the State Respond ent proceeds to question the legality of the appointment of the petitioners, the State Respondent would keep in mind the various orders passed by this Court whi ch are annexed to as Annexure-51 to 56 in the instant writ proceedings. The exer cise to be undertaken by the State Respondent towards payment of salary to the p etitioners be initiated and completed within a period of 6 months from today and while doing so the State Respondent will be at liberty to ascertain the period of service rendered by each of the petitioners. In view of the above, all the four writ petitions stands disposed of.