WP(C) 8158/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ms. M. Gogoi Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Education, appears for the official respondent s. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and was posted at t he Dahali Karka M.E. School by appointment order dated 7.12.1993 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer(DEEO), Guwahati. Subsequently, by order da ted 5.3.2001 of the DEEO, her service was regularized w.e.f 1.8.2000. Being aggr ieved with non-regularization of her service from the date of her initial appoin tment and non-disbursal of her salary, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 8158/2002, where she also prayed for a further direction to protect her services. On 7.1.2 003 notice of motion was issued and it was ordered by the Court that, the petiti oner would be allowed to continue in the post of Asst. Teacher in the Dahali Kar ka M.E. School and necessary steps should be taken by the respondents for relea sing her salary in that capacity w.e.f. 1.8.2000. 3. Since the Court’s order was disregarded, a contempt case i.e. COP' No. 4 84/2003 was filed alleging willful disobedience of the Court’s interim order of 7.1.2003 in WP' No. 8158/2003. The then Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Educati on Department, filed an affidavit in the contempt case, where it was averred tha t necessary steps are being taken to ensure the continuance of the petitioner in the Dahali Karka M.E. School, by transferring a teacher from the said school to make room for the petitioner. The Secretary, who personally appeared assured t he Court that the current salary of the petitioner is being paid and steps have been taken for payment of her arrear salary pending since 1.8.2000. Assuaged by the Secretary’s personal assurance, the contempt proceeding was ordered to be cl osed by the Court on 16.12.2003. 4. Subsequently, an order was passed on 8.12.2003 by the District Elementar y Officer, Kamrup, adjusting the petitioner in the Dahali Karka M.E. School aga inst the transfer vacancy of one Sri Anil Chandra Kumar. But in the adjustment o rder, certain conditions were recorded, which Mr. Goswami contends to be, contr ary to the order passed by this Court on 7.1.2003 in W.P.(C) No. 8158/2002, dire cting payment of salary from 1.8.2000. 5. Mr. G. Goswami also contends that when the orders passed on 7.1.2003 in WP' No. 8158/2002 and on 6.12.2003 in COP(C) No. 484/2003 attained finality i n the absence of any challenge, the respondents cannot refuse petitioner’s salar y from 1.8.2000 in terms of the order of regularization dated 5.3.2001. By refer ring to the averments in misc. case 3684/2007, the counsel points out that altho ugh the petitioner is getting her regular salary w.e.f. April, 2004, her arrear salary w.e.f. 1.8.2000 to April, 2004, is yet to be disbursed. 6. Ms. M. Gogoi Medhi, learned Standing Counsel submits that although s he had requested for instructions in pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 1.3.2011, instruction has not been furnished to her and accordingly, she is n ot in a position to say as to why the arrear salary of the petitioner have remai ned unpaid for the period from 1.8.2000 to March, 2004. But even without instruc tions, she submits that the Court may consider referring the claim of salary of the petitioner, to the committed constituted under the direction given by this C ourt in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar Vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 Vol. 2 GLT 2 16 . But on this submission, since the Court has already ordered on 1.3.2003 tha t petitioner’s salary be paid from 1.8.2000, I see no further role of this commi ttee to have a look at the petitioner’s salary claim. 7. Although the appointment of the petitioner is contended to be irregular by the Departmental Counsel, in the absence of any counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to proceed with this case on that basis. Furthermore, it also a ppears that the order passed by this Court on 7.1.2003 was never challenged and in fact an assurance was given on 16.12.2003 by a responsible officer in the con tempt case that, steps are being taken for release of the petitioner’s arrear sa lary since 1.8.2000. 8. Since the respondents have failed to explain why the arrear salary of th e petitioner have remained unpaid since 1.8.2000 i.e. the date from which her se rvice was regularized, I am of the view that the direction should be given to th e respondents to take all necessary steps to pay the due arrear salary to the pe titioner w.e.f. 1.8.2000, in terms of the Court’s order passed on 7.1.2003 and the assurance given on 6.12.2003 in COP' 484/2003, bearing also in mind the orde r of regularization passed by the DEEO, Guwahati on 5.3.2001. However, the praye r for regularization of service from the date of appointment i.e. 7.12.1993 is f ound to be unjustified and is rejected. The petitioner be accordingly granted al l consequential benefits of a regularized teacher w.e.f 1.8.2000. 9. The respondents are ordered to ensure compliance preferably within a per iod of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 10. The case is disposed of accordingly without any order of cost.