WP(C) 9232/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Education Department r epresenting the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction for payment of his salary as an Assista nt Teacher in the Swahid Piyoli Phukan L.P. School of Sivasagar town where he wa s appointed by the order dated 28th March, 2001 issued by the D.I. of School, Si vasagar. It is claimed that although the petitioner is rendering service in the school, he has not been paid any salary during his entire service tenure. 3. The District Elementary Education Officer and the D.I. of Schools, who w ere ordered to be personally present in the Court on 16.05.2005 took the stand t hat the petitioner was not in service. But the petitioner countered by contendin g that although he is regularly attending the school, he has not been allowed to sign the attendance register. 4. Accordingly the presence of the Headmaster of the school was ordered who stated before the Court on 01.06.2005 that the petitioner has been attending th e school even after 29th March, 2001. The date i.e. 29th March, 2001 is relevant in as much as, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the D.I. of Schools, Siv asagar on 2nd June, 2005, it was averred that although an appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2001, the same was cancelled after one day on 30.03.2001, as it was found that only 100 posts were sanctioned under the D.I. o f Schools, Sivasagar and the petitioner at Sl. No.109 of the select list, was no t entitled to be appointed in those 100 posts. The copy of the order passed by t he Deputy Inspector of Schools cancelling the appointment of the writ petitioner and two others is enclosed as Annexure-B of the counter affidavit. 5. It is contended by Mr. Bhowmik that as the appointment cancellation orde r was never served on the petitioner, it was not made operation and he continued to serve in the school. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned standing counsel however subm its that after the appointment given to the petitioner was cancelled by the appo inting authority, the petitioner had not right to continue in the school. Howeve r the learned counsel is not in a position to demonstrate as to whether the canc ellation order of 30th March, 2001 was ever served on the petitioner. 6. In view of the factual controversies which are required to be resolved f or granting the relief sought by the petitioner, it is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik that the salary claim be referred for consideration by the Committee constituted on the strength of the Court’s order passed in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar Vs. Stat e of Assam reported in 2006(2) GLT 216. The learned counsel for the Education De partment does not oppose the petitioner’s prayer for having the salary claim con sidered by the functioning committee. 7. In view of the consensus amongst the learned Counsels, the Committee con stituted on the basis of the direction given by the Court in Sudhendu Mohan Talu kdar (supra) is directed to consider the grievances of the petitioner for non-pa yment of his salary. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy o f this order along with copy of the writ petition and the counter affidavit befo re the Director of Elementary Education, who will facilitate the consideration o f the petitioner’s claim by the Committee. The necessary exercise in this regard is ordered to be completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of this Cou rt’s order and the petitioner be communicated with the committee’s decision. 8. The case is disposed of with the above direction.