WP(C) 3346/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Ms B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel, BTC and Mr. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, As sam. The grievance as projected by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is non payment of their salary and apprehension of termination of their services by th e BTC authority. The petitioners at the relevant time of filing the writ petiti ons were serving as Asstt. teacher in the respective LP/ME Schools under the BT AD area. Their case is that they were appointed after holding necessary selectio n procedure and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in their appointment. But the respondent authorities under took a process of scrutiny of the appointm ent of the petitioners in an elaborate manner and arrived at the finding that th ere is no record of holding any interview of the petitioners prior to their app ointment and no proposal for approval of appointment from the concerned authorit ies had been made which is also supported by a decision of a competent enquiry c ommittee. The BTAD respondents found that even after submission of the prelimina ry enquiry report, 422 numbers of teachers claimed that they were regularly appo inted in their respective post. In view of the order dated 10.7.08 passed by th e Secretary, BTC incorporating such infirmities in the appointment of the petiti oner, as well as due to non payment of their salaries for the period they served , the petitioners approached this court by filing these writ petitions praying for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities. By filing a counter, the BTAD authorities contended that the petitioners having been appointed illegally, their service were terminated w.e.f. 3.3.09 by serving show cause notice and after consideration of the reply so furnished by the peti tioner. On 21.08.08 upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties directed t o pay the unpaid salaries to the petitioner till 3.3.09 inasmuch as service of t he petitioners were terminated from that date. It is contended at the bar that s alaries of the petitioners were paid up to the month of Februarh, 2009. The term ination order of the petitioners have been challenged by filing separate writ pe titions such as WP (C) No. 4227/09. In view of the termination of the service of the petitioners and subsequent cha llenge of the of the termination order in other subsequent writ petitions, the scope of the present writ petitions serves only to the extent for consideratio n of grievance of non payment of their salaries only. Against the assertion of the learned Standing counsel, BTC that all the petition ers were terminated on 3.3.09, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitione rs submits that some petitioners were terminated on 3.3.09 while others were ter minated 23.6.09. In fact, in case of the petitioner in WP ( C) No. 3346/08, tho ugh his order of termination was dated 23.3.09 but it was served only in the m onth of October,2009 which is not disputed by the learned standing counsel. It i s also submitted that most of the petitioners were served with termination order at a much later date than the date of issue of termination order for which per iod also they served in their respective post, which was accepted by the authori ty and accordingly it is contended that such petitioners are entitled to get the ir pay till the period they worked or till the order of termination was served u pon them whichever is later. Learned Standing counsel, however, referring the order dated 30.5.09 issued by t he Secretary, BTC submits that in the event allowing the petitioners to continu e to serve after issuing the order of termination by the head of the school, the y would be personally responsible for issuing any certificate to any teacher to such office and would also be responsible for financial liability for payment of salaries from their end. It is not disputed that the order of termination of the petitioner in WP ( C) No. 3346/08 was passed on 23.6.09 but the same serv ed upon him on 12.10.09. It is one of the principle of law that if an employee renders certain work and the same is accepted by the employer, he is entitled to get salary for the peri od so worked, of course it may be subject to certain other restricted condition. In the instant case the termination orders were issued on two different dates, one on 3.3.09 and the other on 23.6.09. The assertion of the petitioners is tha t the termination orders were not served on the date of their issue but it was s erved at a later point of time and for this period the service of the petitioner s were utilized by the authority and as such they are entitled to get salary for such period. In view of the aforesaid facts situation, the termination order of these petitio ners being the subject matter of challenge in other writ petition filed subseque ntly, and the petitioners having been paid their salaries up to the month of F ebruary, 2009, the only thing remains to consider about the claim of the petitio ner for payment of salary till their actual date of service of termination order . Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Director of Education, BTC to find out the actual date of service of termin ation order upon the respective petitioner and whether they worked from the da te of termination order till it was served upon them and in the event the same i s found to be correct as asserted by the petitioners, they shall be paid their s alaries till such date. It would also be open to the respondent authorities, in the event the conditions laid down in the communication dated 30.5.09 issued by the Secretary, BTC is fulfilled, the financial responsibility for payment o f salary for such period would be fixed upon the concerned head of the instituti ons. The Director, BTC is directed to complete the entire exercise as early as possib le, preferably within a period of seventy five days from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petitions stand closed with the above directions.