WP(C) 1662/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K. MERUNO Heard Mr. D Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner a nd Mr. U K Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Consultant (Gazetted) under the Directorate of Non formal and Adult Educati on. Accordingly, the petitioner joined service on 25-03-1996 and was serving as a Consultant in the Non Formal and Adult Education Scheme in the Government of A ssam till 23-12-2003. Consequent to the modification of the Non Formal and Adult Education Scheme, many employees of the Scheme were adjusted and accommodated i n different branches of the Respondent Department. Moreover, on 14th March, 2001 , the Secretary to the Education Department vide memo No. A(I)E.206/2000/007 inf ormed the respondent No.4 that all employees of the Non Formal Education Direct orate working in the regular posts having continuous retention and availing sala ry on full scale of pay will be given adjustment benefit under various Directora te of Education Department within a maximum period of 2 years of time and after adjustment the employees will be eligible to incur arrear salary for the gap per iod only and it would be followed by the regularization of the post of the perio d along with pay protection, seniority and pensionary benefit. Consequent theret o save and except the petitioner most of the employees of the erstwhile Director ate of Non Formal and Adult Education, Assam were adjusted in different wings of the Education Department. But the petitioner for reasons unknown was not adjust ed consequent to which the petitioner filed W.P(C) 3179 of 2001 (Later on withdr awn on being infructuous as the petitioner was adjusted in the post of lecturer in the State Council of Education Research Training). Subsequently though the pe titioner was adjusted in the post of lecturer in the State Council of Education Research Training (SCERT), but the salary along with interest of the petit ioner along with full incidental service benefit and increments for the pe riod 01-04-2001 to 23-12-2002 has not been paid and service of the petition er for the period 01-04-2001 to 23-12-2002 has not been considered by the Respon dent Authorities as within service period in spite of utilization of service of the petitioner by the Respondent Authorities as is evident from the letter dated 09-03-2009. The petitioner being aggrieved filed numerous representations for h is grievances, but the same has not yielded any result. Being aggrieved, the pet itioner has approached this Hon’ble Court for ventilating his grievances. Counter on behalf of the respondent No.5 has also been filed. The stand s of the respondents have been stated in para no.6 of the affidavit-in-oppositio n filed by the respondent No.5. In para no. 6 of the said affidavit-in-oppositio n it has been stated that the petitioner never worked under the S S A either on deputation or on attachment basis at all involved regarding his claim and there is no question of regularisation of his gap period service with effect from 01. 04.2001 to 23.12.2002. Besides the denial, no other supporting documents or stat ements have been made in the entire affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No .5. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behal f of the parties and on perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents relied upon, two questions have to be decided in this writ petition: i) Whether the petitioner was serving under the S S A during the said period wi th effect from 01.04.2001 to 23.12.2002? ii) Whether the impugned Notification dated 09.03.2009 is in consonant with the letter dated 14.03.2001? In order to decide the first question, it is crystal clear from the lett er dated 14.03.2001 under the subject phasing out of Non-formal Education (for s hort N.F.E) scheme on 31.03.2001 Unstarred Assembly Question No.41 dated 05.03.2 001 and 22.01.2002, the petitioner was serving under the S S A and the denial of the respondent No.5 is that the petitioner had never worked under the S S A can not be accepted. Further, when the Non-Formal Education (for short N.F.E) was ph ased out on 31.03.2001 vide letter dated 14.03.2001, the said letter inter-alia states no office of the N.F.E will be functioned hereafter. However, all employe es working in regular posts having continuous retention and availing salary on f ull scale of pay will be given adjustment benefit under various directorate of E ducation Department within maximum of 2(two) years time or so in equivalent post s having retention but lying vacant. After adjustment/ absorption, they will onl y be eligible to incur arrear salary for the gap period followed by regularisati on of the period along with pay protection, seniority and pensionary benefit. A nd also vide Unstarred Assembly Question No.41 dated 05.03.2002 and the impugned Notification dated 09.03.2009 ought to have been passed because of several bene fits have already been granted by the said letter dated14.03.2001. It would also not be justified to allow only pensionary benefit to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2001 to 23.12.2002. The other benefits incorporated in letter dated 14.03.2001 should have also been granted. Such being the situation, this Court i s of the considered view that the impugned notification dated 09.03.2009 has not been quashed in consonant with the letter dated14.03.2001. Accordingly, the imp ugned notification dated 09.03.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass necessary order in consonant with t he letter dated 14.03.2009. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed and stands dispo sed of.