WP(C) 4341/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. The petitioners, numbering 32, are aggrieved by the non-payment of their salary with effect from 1.3.2006. However, in respect of the petitioner No.5, same is s tated to be payable from 2004. The petitioners are the employees of the Panchayat & Rural Development departmen t. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it has been indicated that the petitione rs No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28 , 29, 30, 31 and 32 are working as Tax Collectors while the petitioners No.6, 14 , 22, 24 and 25 are working as Office Peon (Grade-IV). The petitioners No.19 and 20 are working as Lower Division Assistant. According to the petitioners, they were all appointed in the year 1996 and have been continuing in their services s ince then. From the materials on record, it appears that raising the same grievance, the pe titioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C ) No.9149/2004. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.3.2005 with the following order :- 24.3.2005 Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Govt. Advocate. The petitioners, thirty in number, were appointed in various Grade-III a nd Grade-IV posts in the Directorate /Department of Panchayat and Rural Developm ent, Govt. of Assam on different dates in the year 1996. The grievance raised in the writ petition is with regard to regularization of the services of the petit ioners and payment of arrear salary, which the petitioners contend has not been paid to them w.e.f. 1.3.2004. The Director of Panchayat and Rural Development, Govt. of Assam has filed an aff idavit in the case wherein it has been stated that the initial appointment of th e petitioners were on casual basis and that, in the meantime, pursuant to the po licy decision of the Government, the services of large number of employees of th e Department, including the petitioners, have been provincialised and the matter relating to regularization of services of the petitioners and other such simila r cases are presently pending before the Government. There is also no dispute r aised in the affidavit filed by the respondents that the petitioners are not emp loyed at present. The stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit filed has considerably narro wed down controversy in the present writ petition. If the petitioners continue t o be in employment, naturally, they have the right to be paid their monthly remu neration, which having been held up w.e.f. 1.3.2004, an appropriate order is lia ble to be issued by the Court for payment of the same. Accordingly, the Commissi oner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development is dir ected to pass all consequential orders as would be required to ensure that the u p-to date salary of the petitioners is paid to them within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The other aspect of the grievance raised in the writ petition i.e. regarding reg ularization of the services of the petitioners being admittedly pending before the Govt., the Court is of the considered view that the Government should be le ft free to decide the matter. Accordingly, instead of passing any direction as prayed for, I close this writ petition by directing the Government to forthwith and without any delay finalize the entitlement of the petitioners to regulariza tion of their services. The writ petition shall stand allowed to the extent as indicated above. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Govt. Advocate. Following the aforesaid order, another writ petition being WP(C) No.2421/2005 wa s also disposed of by order dated 11.4.2005. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of the aforesaid order pass ed by this Court, their salary again has been stopped with effect from 1.3.2006 and that their case for regularization of services has not been taken up by the respondents. As noted above, it is the case of the petitioners that the petiti oner No.5 has not been paid salary from 2004. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat & Rural Development department, the fact that the petitioners have been working under the respondents, has not b een denied. It has been stated that in view of the Government Circular dated 16. 12.2009, necessary approval of the Government for extension/regularization of t he services of the petitioners is required, for which, necessary proposal was s ubmitted wayback in 2004 (10.6.2004) followed by further proposal sent on 20.11. 2009. By the said proposal dated 20.11.2009, the proposal was made for release of arrear salary payable to the petitioners. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the names of Sr i Sanjib Kumar Talukdar and Kartik Deka are not to be found in the list of casua l workers. It appears that the said Sri Sanjib Kumar Talukdar is the petitioner No.5. However, the name of Kartik Deka does not appear in the writ petition as o ne of the petitioners. Dealing with the provincialization of services of the Assam Panchayat employees, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that as per the provisions of the A ssam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, measures have been adopt ed towards provincialization of the services of the Panchayat employees. Howeve r, as regards the petitioners, it has been stated that they have been appointed on casual basis in the year 1996. The further statements made in the affidavit are that the retention of the posts held by the petitioners was upto 28.2.2005 and not thereafter. As against the aforesaid plea of retention of the posts upto 28.2.2005, the case of the petitioners is that the posts have been retained upto 28.2.2009, as will be evident from the Annexure-19 communication dated 30.9.2008. By another commu nication dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure-19-A to the writ petition), the posts have be en retained upto 28.2.2010. Thus, according to the petitioners, there is no imp ediment towards release of the arrear salary to the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed by the Finance Department, it has been stated tha t the petitioners having been appointed without following due procedure, their services are liable to be terminated and accordingly, necessary instructions wer e issued to the Panchayat & Rural Development department. However, suggestion h as also been made in the affidavit to the effect that the Panchayat & Rural Deve lopment department has not followed due procedure to regularize the services of the petitioners through the Cabinet. The present case is in fact, covered by earlier direction of this Court as conta ined in the order dated 24.3.2005 passed in WP(C) No.9149/2004 followed by the o rder dated 11.4.2005 passed in WP(C) No.2421/2005. The order dated 24.3.2005 h as been quoted above. It is not the case of the respondents that the services of the petitioners have been terminated. If the petitioners have been continuing in their services, I see no reason as to why they should not be paid their admi ssible salary. As regards the question of regularization of their services, nec essary observation has already been made in the aforesaid order dated 24.3.2005. As per the affidavit filed by the Finance Department, the Panchayat & Rural De velopment department should get the services of the petitioners regularized by m oving the Cabinet. If any action is required to be taken in that direction, it w ill be open for the said department to do so in accordance with law. In the instant proceeding, we are not concerned with the regularization of the s ervices of the petitioners as the same is not the prayer of the petitioners. T heir prayer is for release of arrear salary. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are still continuing in their services and taking into account the e arlier direction of this Court quoted above, this writ petition is disposed of w ith the following direction :- 1. The respondents shall pay arrear salary to the petitioners as expeditiou sly as possible, preferably within 3 (three) months from today. 2. As regards the regularization of the services of the petitioners, the ea rlier direction of this Court referred to above, will hold the field. Writ petition is disposed of.