WP(C) 4492/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) By invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Shri Anil Das has praye d for a direction to the respondents, particularly respondent No.3 to pay his sa lary and allowances from 1986 to May, 2004 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with a further direction to withhold payment of pension to respondent No. 6 till payment of arrear salaries to the petitioner for the said period . 2. The factual matrix leading the petitioner to approach this Court is enum erated in a nutshell hereinbelow; The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar at Pranab Kumar Girls’ M.E. Sc hool, Arunachal with effect from 01.02.1982 when the school was at its venture s tage. On 04.03.1987, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar made spot verifica tion of the school and submitted a report thereof to the District Elementary Edu cation Officer, Cachar at Silchar (respondent No. 3) on 09.03.1987 (vide Annexur e A to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner). In the said report, th e date of petitioner’s appointment was shown to be 01.02.1982. Subsequently, the school was provincialized with effect from 01.09.1986 vide order bearing Memo N o. DMS-40/87/1862-66 dated 13.03.1987 (Annexure B to the petitioner’s additional affidavit). In the GPF statement prepared by the office of the Accountant Gener al, Assam also figured the particulars in respect of petitioner’s service. Howev er, the respondent No. 6 who was the then Headmaster of the school, kept the pet itioner in absolute darkness about the provincialization of his service. The res pondent No. 6 though drew the full salary of the petitioner since 1986, yet the petitioner was given Rs.20.00- Rs. 40.00 to Rs.60.00- Rs.70.00 per day, thereby misappropriating almost the entire salary. This fact of misappropriation came to the light in the month of May, 2004 on appointment of new Headmaster namely Shr i Arun Kumar Nath. Thereafter the petitioner has been paid his full salaries sin ce June, 2004. Subsequently, on enquiry in respect of various anomalies was held by one Smt. K. Nath, EAC and report submitted on 27.09.2004 (vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition). It has been indicated that only after joining of the new He admaster, the petitioner could come to know that he was an employee of the said school and thereafter only he was paid his salaries. In response to a query made by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 20.06.2006 (Annexure G to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner) submitted the s tatement of petitioner’s salary drawn for the period from 01.09.1986 to 31.05.20 04 during the tenure of headmastership of respondent No. 6. As per the said stat ement a gross amount of Rs.5,96,922.15 was drawn as petitioner’s salary, but acc ording to the petitioner, he was not paid his salary for the said period. The th en District Elementary Education Officer accordingly lodged an FIR on 05.07.2006 in the Silchar Police Station, as per instruction of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and the case has been registered as Silchar Police Station ca se No. 999/2006 and subsequently registered as GR Case No. 1908/2006 in the c ourt of competent jurisdiction which is pending for disposal. 3. The respondent No. 6 has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegatio n made against him by the petitioner. He had categorically stated in his counter affidavit that the teachers and staff of the school as well as the register rec ording the disbursement of GPF etc. would reflect that the salary was regularly disbursed to the petitioner and his provident fund contribution was also being m ade during the tenure of the headmastership of respondent No. 6 vide Annexure 3 series. He further contended that all these allegations have been made at the be hest of his successor Shri Arun Kumar Nath. 4. On the contrary, the respondent No. 2 i.e the Director of Elementary Edu cation, Assam in his counter affidavit categorically stated that the respondent No. 6 drew total amount of Rs. 5,82,265/- for the period from 01.09.1986 to May, 2004 from the Treasury in the name of the petitioner as his salary but did not pay the same to him by saying that the petitioner’s service was not provincializ ed and thereby the respondent No. 6 has misappropriated the above amount. 5. Heard Mr.M.U.Mahmud learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also h eard Mr.U.K.Goswami learned Standing Counsel, Education department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr.B.Gogoi learned Standing Counsel, Finance Depart ment appearing for the respondent No.5 and Ms.P.Chakraborty learned counsel appe aring for the respondent No.6. Also perused the materials available on record. The documents vide Annexure 3 series which has been strongly relied upon by the respondent No. 6 are not the absolute proof of the fact that the salaries to the petitioner were paid regularly by the respondent No. 6 during the tenure of his headmastership, inasmuch as, except Annexure-3 series, there is no supporting d ocument to prove that the petitioner received his salary regularly. The material s on record reveal that the petitioner was rather rendering services as servant at the house of respondent No. 6 when he was the Headmaster of the said school a nd even the other teachers and staff of the school were in darkness about the fa ct that the petitioner’s service was also provincialized at the time of provinci alization of the school by the Government. Therefore, the plea of the respondent No. 6 that salaries were regularly paid to the petitioner during the period in question is not trustworthy. 6. It is a sad state of affairs on the part of the concerned departmental a uthorities that a Grade-IV employee of the school was not paid his salary for ab out long 19 years, though he is legally entitled for the same and the matter rem ained un-noticed by the departmental authorities throughout. 7. Keeping in view the averments made in the writ petition as well as the c ounter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, I hereby direct the respondent N os. 1 to 5 to take immediate steps to release the salary to the petitioner for t he period from 01.09.1986 to 31.05.2004 . 8. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) month s from today. 9. The writ petition is allowed as indicated hereinabove. 10. No costs.