WP(C) 2962/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner’s grievance pertains to the order dated 26.02.2010 of the Block E lementary Education Officer, Nowboicha withholding her salary with immediate eff ect on the ground that her post had not been adjusted properly and was reconcile d on the basis of illegal proposal from the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, No rth Lakhimpur without the approval of the higher authority of the Department. I have heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pa thak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Govt. of Assam. In a nutshell, the petitioner’s pleaded version is that she had been appointed a s stipendiary teacher on temporary basis vide Office Order No.-DI/NL/A-56-C/834- 839 dated 30.01.1996 by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur an d was posted at Bilotia (Katory Chuk) L.P. School (hereinafter for short referre d to as the School) on monthly stipend Rs.900.00. Having been denied her salar y, thereafter, though she rendered her services without any break and diligently , she alongwith other similarly situated persons approached this Court with WP(C ) No.1750/2002 expressing the said grievance. The said proceeding was disposed of on 19.03.2002 with the direction to the Director of Elementary Education, Ass am and the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur to consider her case alo ngwith others equally placed for the release of their current, as well as arrear salary due from 30.01.1996 and also to consider the adjustment of their service against posts in Non-plan Head. Vide order dated 06.01.2005 of the Director, El ementary Education, Assam the petitioner, thereafter, was sanctioned pay scale o f Rs.3130.00 - 6600.00, she having meanwhile passed the Junior Basic Training Ex amination. It was thereafter, that the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhi mpur forwarded a list of 81 L.P. School teachers of the North Lakhimpur Sub-Divi sion who were construed to be eligible to draw salary. In the said list, the pe titioner’s name appeared at Sl. No.72. While she was thus receiving her salary against the services being rendered by her, by the impugned order the same has b een suddenly stopped for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. In terms of the order of this Court, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam h as placed written instructions with the Learned Standing Counsel, Education Depa rtment, Govt. of Assam to the effect that the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur had forwarded the list of 81 L.P. School teachers to the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Education Department treating them to be genuine i ncumbents rendering services. The written instructions referred to the parawais e comments of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur which disclose th at the petitioner had been appointed as stipendiary teacher in Bilotia(Katory Ch uk) L.P. School by his predecessor in interest at the relevant point of time aga inst a non-existent post. That her salary was thereafter released following the order dated 19.03.2002 of this court is however admitted. The parawise comment s reveal absence of any record relating to illegal proposal as mentioned in th e impugned order, for which the petitioner’s salary has been withheld. That her name appeared at Sl. No.72 in the list of 81 serving incumbents has been reitera ted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur. Mr. Chetri has urged that as the State respondents do not deny the petitioner’s selection prior to her appointment as stipendiary teacher, the impugned action o f withholding her salary at this distant point of time, more particularly, in th e face of the judicial intervention made by this Court on the issue in WP(C) No. 1750/2002 is apparently illegal and arbitrary and ought to he adjudged as such. As there is an overwhelming admission on the part of the State respondents that the petitioner had been acknowledged to be one of the genuine serving incumbent s of her School, there is no reason why her salary should be withheld in the man ner so done and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case a writ of m andamus ought to be issued to the respondents to release the same forthwith. Mr. Pathak, however has urged that as the petitioner’s appointment had been agai nst a non-existent post, her claim for salary is misconceived. Mere inclusion of her name in the list of teachers approved by the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt . of Assam, Education Department does not vest her with any right to salary, he urged. This is more so, as he submits on instructions that all appointments mad e by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur had been annulled hav ing been found to be illegal and against non-existent posts. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded documents annexed, this Court finds it difficult to sustain, for the pres ent, the plea raised on behalf of the State respondents. The sequence of events as narrated hereinabove demonstrate the following- (1) The respondents do not deny that the petitioner had been selected for appoin tment as a stipendiary teacher; (2) The petitioner had been released her salary following a process undertaken i n terms of the order dated 19.03.2002 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1750/2002 ; (3) Her name appears at Sl. No.72 of the list of 81 identified genuine incumbent s of the Schools of the North Lakhimpur Sub-Division, which was approved by the highest authority of the Department; (4) The records on the basis of which the Block Elementary Education Officer, No wboicha had concluded that her services had been adjusted on the basis of an ill egal proposal are untraceable and (5) The State respondents do not deny that the petitioner is rendering her servi ces continuously without any break since her initial appointment as stipendiary teacher till date. The assemblage all these factors taken together impels this Court to sustain the plea of the petitioner against the action of withholding her salary. On the basis of the available materials on record, consequentially, the impugned order dated 26.02.2010 of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Nowboicha is interfered with. The State respondents, more particularly, the Director, Elemen tary Education, Assam would cause necessary steps to be taken for release of her salary, arrear and current forthwith. The above, notwithstanding, as it has been contended on behalf of the State resp ondents without however specifically indicating that in the process of annulment of the appointments made by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimp ur, that of the petitioners had also been cancelled and further said action had been sustained by this Court, the State respondents are left at liberty, if so a dvised to initiate an appropriate enquiry in this regard. The present determina tion of this Court, on the basis of the available materials on record, it is mad e clear, would not come in the way of such exercise. However till such a process , if any, is initiated and is completed, no adverse step against the petitioner would be taken without affording prior opportunity of hearing to her. The writte n instructions, parawise comments etc. produced before this Court as referred to hereinabove would form a part of the records. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.