WP(C) 503/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Smt. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Pathak , learned Standing Counsel, Education Department as well as Mr. D. Saikia, learn ed Standing Counsel, Finance Department. 2. The brief case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as 2nd founder teachers by the Managing Committees of various L.P. Schools in Morig aon District. The schools in which they were working, were provincialised. The p etitioners were accommodated against the posts created under the OBB (Operation Black Board) under Central Government Scheme. The petitioners were initially app ointed as primary school teachers on purely temporary basis with monthly stipend at the fixed rate of Rs. 900/- per month with certain terms and conditions. One of such appointment letters in respect of Sri Nilomoni Saikia issued by the Dep uty Inspector of School, Morigaon vide Memo No. 20/94/70 dated 29.3.1995 has bee n annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. They were sent for training and al l of them successfully completed the training in the year 1998 as per the announ cement of result on 31.3.1998. The present petitioners claim for regular time sc ale of pay from their respective dates of joining as per the time scale fixed un der the Central Government Scheme i.e. Rs. 2985/- PM. It is the specific grievan ce of the petitioners that the aforesaid scale of Rs. 2985/- has been g ranted to other similarly situated persons from the date of their joining. In su pport of this the petitioners have annexed the copy of an order issued by the Jo int Director, (Elementary) Education, Assam, Kahilipara vide Memo No. EPA-1/2000 /Pt-V/114 dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Claiming similar pa y scale from the date of joining the petitioners submitted a representation date d 5.10.2005 before the Secretary of Education, Dispur, Assam but the same has no t been considered by the aforesaid Secretary and the same is still pending. Smt. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are en titled to get the benefit of time scale of pay as prescribed by the Central Gove rnment from the respective dates of joining inasmuch as the same has been allowe d in respect of 6 (six) similarly situated teachers. 3. Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department submits that the petitioners were appointed only on 29.3.1995 at the monthly fixed stipend of Rs. 900/- and they have accepted the same and only after a lapse of 12 years th ey have approached this Court in the year 2007 for granting them pay scale from the dates of their joining which is not permissible inasmuch as it is hit by the law of estoppel. According to Mr. Pathak, the petitioners accepted the t erms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letters and they can’t now retr act after lapse of a long period of time. Moreover, according to Mr. Pathak, the Government has taken a policy decision to appoint teachers initially on tempora ry basis on a monthly fixed stipend of Rs. 900/-, which has been raised subseque ntly to Rs. 1800/- and to send them to training and if they pass the training, t hey would be entitled to time scale of pay. As per the said policy the Governmen t allowed the time scale of pay to the petitioners w.e.f 01.03.1998 as has been indicated in order dated 14.3.2000 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). His afores aid submissions are based on affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Joi nt Director (Elementary) Education, Assam regarding payment of time scale to six similarly situated persons it has been explained in para 14 of the affidavit, w hich is reproduced below: 14. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition the deponent states that in pursuance of the Government letter No. PMA-30/200/1 02, dated 09.09.2003, the six posts of primary teachers under the Deputy Inspect or of Schools, Marigaon are conveyed in the scale of pay and allowances as admis sible under the Rules with retrospective effect from the date of issue of the sa id letter up to 27.02.2004 under non-plan for accommodation of six primary schoo l teachers who were originally appointed under OBB Scheme with the condition tha t (i) the six posts will be personal to the incumbents and whenever they relinqu ished the post(s) in any form, the post(s) will stand abolished and (ii) wherein any vacancy arises, those incumbents will have to be adjusted on priority basis by abolishing the personal post. The said six posts out of 8153 post under OBB Scheme, occupied by those incumbents, were created vide Government letter No. PM A-158/94 dated 18-01-1995. The said six posts have already been abolished and as such the allegation of the Petitioners does not arise. According to Mr. Pathak the case of the aforesaid six persons are not similar to the present petitioners. 4. Moreover, it has been submitted that this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar case in WP(C) No. 6034 of 2001, Smt. Deepa Deka Vs State of Assam & Ors., along with other similar cases which were decided by judgment and order dated 14.8.2003, against which writ appeals were preferred in the Division Benc h. The writ appeal No. 447 of 2004 (Babul Deka & Ors. Vs State of Assam & Ors.) along with a set of appeals, was disposed of by a common judgment and order date d 25.04.2008 upholding the judgment of the Single Bench. The Division Bench held that the nature of employment being contractual, the teachers appointed as stip endiary cannot seek more than what they have been offered under the contract of employment and they have no legal enforceable right to claim the time scale of p ay. 5. The writ petitioners have no dispute on the policy decision of the Gover nment in regard to stipendiary appointment and regularisation after passing the basic training and also granting of time scale of pay to such teachers. The peti tioners are however disputing the action of the State respondent authorities in granting time scale to other six persons who were also rendering service under t he same circumstances and situation and yet, they were granted time scale of pay from the date of their joining depriving the present petitioners in a discrimin atory manner. As regards the averments made in para 18 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Director, I am afraid that the Respondents have been abl e to explain the position satisfactorily. The matter, hence, needs further exami nation by the Respondent authorities on the basis of records maintained by them and decide the entitlement of the petitioners for time scale of pay from the dat e of their joining. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances it would be appropriate to remand this matter to the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department (Elemen tary), Dispur to verify and examine the petitioners’ claim in the light of the j udgment rendered by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and also policy decisi on of the Government. After such examination and verification, the respondent Commissioner Secretary aforesaid, shall pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners. The entire process should be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the above observations and directions this case is disposed of.