WP(C) 402/2008 BEFORE HONBLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr M. Dutta, le arned Standing counsel, Education Department. For the order that would be passed, it is not necessary to go into the f actual details. Suffice it to mention that, the petitioners who are working a s Head Teacher/ Assistant Teacher respectively in Larsingpar Govt. Jr. Basic Sch ool, Cachar, Silchar were placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.6.1992 by an order u nder Memo No.WHA.92/92/A dated 6.7.1992 issued by the Deputy Director of Element ary Education, Assam. This was, in view of their involvement in Algapur PS case No.234/91 U/s 3/4/5 TADA Act. After the submission of the final report in the case, the petitioners by order dated 21.9.2000 of the Director of Elementary E ducation, Assam, were and thereafter reinstated and the period of suspension w as ordered to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes. According to the petitioners, though they have been reinstated , their salary f or the period of suspension with effect from 6.7.1992 to 21.9.2000 has not yet b een released. 2 Mr Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Education Department has argued referring t o the communication dated 19.4.2008 of the Director of Elementary Education, As sam that in the meantime, a proposal for payment of the arrear salary of the pet itioners for the aforementioned period has been called for from the Deputy Insp ector of Schools, Silchar and on receipt thereof, it would be submitted before the government for necessary sanction and disbursement of the amount found due. The parawise comments accompanying the aforesaid communication also bear out the above stand of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and the documents available before this Court, this proceeding stan ds closed with a direction to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam , Education (Elementary) Department, Dispur to cause necessary steps to be take n to ensure that the petitioners’ arrear dues are settled early and defrayed to them. This is because, the written instructions received in no manner indicate any reservation of the part of the departmental authorities vis a vis the pet itioners’ entitlement therefor. As Mr Dutta prays for a reasonable time for the respondents to complete the proc ess, this Court 3 hereby fixes a time limit of Six(6) months therefor. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs. JUDGE BARUAH 9508