WP(C) 1189/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The petitioner, who is presently working as Upper Division Assistant-cum - Cashier in the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board (in short ’the Boar d’), by the present petition is challenging the order dated 04.08.2005 issued by the Managing Director of the Board whereby and where under the office order dat ed 03.08.2005 issued by him giving pay protection to the petitioner has been can celled until further orders. I have heard Mr. B.D.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C . Kayal, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. J.Handique , learned State Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3. Mr. B.D.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as th e petitioner is entitled to get pay protection under the relevant rules/ regulat ions/ orders of the government, the Board in its 39th meting held on 04.03.2005 decided to protect the pay of the petitioner vide Resolution No.8(b) and consequ ently an order having been passed by the Managing Director of the Board on 03.08 .2005 giving such protection of pay, the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled t hat too without issuing any notice to the petitioner as has been done vide order dated 04.08.2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Boar d in its affidavit-in-opposition as well as in rejoinder affidavit has taken the stand that the petitioner was not appointed in the Assam Textile Corporation ag ainst a substantive post and her appointment was temporary in nature in the said Corporation and thereby contended that the petitioner is not entitled to protec tion, though, in fact, she was appointed against a substantive post and not on t emporary basis, but on regular basis and as such she is entitled to protection w hich was given vide order dated 03.08.2005. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the pet itioner, in support of his contention has referred to the statement made in para graph-4 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner against the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.1 and 2. Mr.S.C.Kayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Boar d on the other hand, referring to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposit ion as well as rejoinder affidavit, has submitted that though the Board in its 3 9th meeting held on 04.03.2005 decided to protect pay of the petitioner, such de cision being subject to petitioner’s entitlement under the government rules in t hat respect, as is evident from the Resolution No.8(b) adopted in the said meeti ng, the Managing Director passed the order on 04.08.2005 canceling the earlier o rder dated 03.08.2005 as because she was not appointed in the Assam Textile Corp oration against a substantive vacancy and her service was temporary in nature. A ccording to the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2, the Annexure-5 was never been issued by the Managing Director of the Board. It is apparent from the Resolution No.8(b) adopted by the Board in its 3 9th meeting held on 04.03.2005 that the Board resolved to protect the pay of the petitioner, if she is entitled to such protection under the existing government rules. It also appears from Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.1 and 2 that the Board on 05.04.2005, pursuant to its decision taken in the 39th Meeting, referred the matter to the Government in the Urban D evelopment Department for approval, which, however, has been returned back infor ming the Board that the Government has nothing to do with the internal matter of the Board. The Managing Director of the Board thereafter issued office order da ted 03.08.2005 giving pay protection to the petitioner. A copy of such order was also endorsed to the Secretary of the Board as well accounts branch of the Boar d apart from the petitioner. The said order was subsequently cancelled on 04.08. 2005 by the Managing Director until further orders. The contention of the Respon dent No.1 and 2 is that the office order dated 03.08.2005 was never issued canno t at all be accepted in view of issuance of the order dated 04.08.2005. Had the order dated 03.08.2005 not been issued, there would have no occasion for issuanc e of the order dated 04.08.2005. Be that as it may, the pertinent question that falls for consideration i s that whether the petitioner is entitle to get the benefit of pay protection un der the relevant government rules, which according to the counsel for the partie s are being followed in the Board. The contention of the petitioner is that she was regularly appointed against substantive vacancy in the Assam Textile Corpora tion, though she was initially appointed on temporary basis, her service was sub sequently regularized. On the other hand, the stand of the Board, as it appears from the affidavits filed, is that the petitioner is not entitled to protection she having been appointed under the Textile Corporation on temporary basis. In the absence of the Assam Tetile Corporation before this Court, it is not p ossible on the part of this Court to record any finding as to whether the petiti oner’s contention is correct or the contention of the Board. The Board has admit tedly adopted the Resolution in its 39th meeting on 04.08.2005 to protect the pa y of the petitioner provided she is entitled to benefit. Therefore, the Board ha s no objection in giving pay protection to the petitioner as has been given to o ther similarly placed person subject to her entitlement. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction t o the Managing Director of the Respondent Board to scrutinize all the papers to be submitted by the petitioner and also the service book and other relevant docu ments available with the Board and ascertain entitlement of the petitioner for s uch protection of pay as was given earlier vide order dated 03.08.2005 which, ho wever, was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 04.08.2005. In case the servi ce book is not available with the Board, the petitioner shall furnish a Photosta t copy of the same for the purpose of verification by the Board Authorities. It is made clear that if upon such verification, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to such benefit under the relevant rules, she shall be extended the be nefit with effect from the date when such benefit was extended to her vide order dated 03.08.2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 1(one) month from the date of production of necessary papers/documents by the petitione r. It is also made clear that the Managing Director while verifying entitle ment of the petitioner may also verify the records of the Assam Textile Corporat ion. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of with no o rder as to costs.