WP(C) 232/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. E. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Deka, learned SC, PWD. The petitioner who is a Muster Roll worker under the respondents is aggrieved by non-payment of salary for the period from 06.04.1999 to 25.01.2001 amounting to Rs. 33,400/-. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied that t he petitioner is not entitled to the said amount. However, an objection has been raised that there was ban on appointment of Muster Roll worker during the parti cular period. In paragraph-4 of the affidavit in opposition, it has been stated that a Cheque bearing No. 4540/226994 was issued by the respondent No. 3 and the same was submitted to the respondent No. 4 for payment of salary to the petitio ner. However, the respondent No. 4, i.e. the Treasury Officer, Karimganj refused to pay the same on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on the ban peri od. When the employer itself did not raise any objection, the Treasury Officer, Karimganj could not have raised objection regarding payment of salary to the pet itioner, more particularly when the petitioner has worked for the said period. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents including the respondent No. 4, i.e. the Treasury Officer, Karimganj, to pay th e admissible salary to the petitioner for the said period, if it is found that t he petitioner in fact had worked in the said period as Muster Roll worker. Let the entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but a t any rate, not later than 30.09.2011.