WP(C) 1868/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. DM Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ghosh , learned State Counsel, Assam. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked for an appropriate w rit and/or direction to the respondents to release the petitioner’s arrear pay, which according to him, remains unpaid from October, 2004 till date. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a casual Junior Engineer in the District Rural Development Agency and was posted at Barbhag Development Block, Kamarkuchi. Being so appointed on 08.12.1992, he was initially paid fixed pay o f Rs. 1250/- per month, which stood revised with time to Rs. 3580/- per month. In terms of the policy of the Government to regularize casual Junior Engineers, who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993, according to the petitioner, a list of suc h officers was drawn up, in which his name figured at Sl. No. 36. His grievance is that though, he is rendering his services without any break, his wages/pay f rom the month of October, 2004 has not been paid. Meanwhile, he approached this Court with WP(C) No. 486/2006, but eventually, did not press the petition. The respondent No. 3 in his affidavit has stated that the petitioner was engaged by the Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari on 08.12.192 to look after the works of JRY/EAS, but the process of his appointment was not administered in accordance w ith the official norms and procedure. According to the answering respondent, th e petitioner was withdrawn from the engagement on 08.03.2004 by the then Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari and that therefore, his claim for arrear salary from Oc tober, 2004 is misconceived. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts, this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, considers it inexpedient to delve into the disputed questions of facts. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to impress upon this Court that the letter dated 08.03.2004 of the Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari, disengaging Sri Satyen Barman does not relate to him and that in fact he is rendering his servic es as on date, noticeably, the petitioner’s name in the cause tile of the instan t petition too is not Satindra Barman as well. The list of casual Junior Engine ers working prior to 1993 (Annexure D to the writ petition), the name at Sl. No. 36 is that of Sri Satindra Barman. It also does not contain any date. It is, t herefore, difficult for this Court to come to an unassailable conclusion that th e petitioner has been rendering his services as a casual Junior Engineer beyond March, 2004. If that be so, consequentially no direction to the respondents to release his arrear pay can be issued. This Court, therefore, declines to issue a writ and/or direction for payment of arrear salaries as prayed for in the face of the conflicting pleadings. Notwithstanding the above determination, if the petitioner submits an appropriat e representation before the respondent No. 2, Director of Panchyat & Rural Devel opment, Assam, stating all relevant facts in support of his claim for arrear sal ary on the basis of the services rendered by him continuously without any break beyond 08.03.2004, the said authority would cause necessary steps to be taken to examine the authenticity thereof and if on scrutiny, it appears that the petiti oner’s claim has a legal and factual basis, the said authority would ensure that his dues in law, are released to him. The petition stands closed with the above observation. No costs .