WP(C) 9267/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SK Das, l earned standing counsel for the Education Department. 2. The petitioner, who is serving as an UDA in the Office of the District E lementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, seeks direction for payment of arrear a nd current salaries, after his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated and the subsequent order passed by the Director of Elementary Education on 7.8.2002 (Annexure-J), whereby it is declared that no charge could be framed and the peri od of his suspension should be regularized for all purposes. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Kumar that after the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 11.2.1997 issued by the District Elementary Educat ion Officer, Hailakandi, he was reinstated w.e.f. 24.2.1999 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. But by the subsequent order passed by the Director o f Elementary Education, on 7th August, 2002, it was declared that the preliminar y enquiry could not justify any charge against the delinquent and accordingly th e suspension period was treated as on duty for all purposes. The counsel submits that notwithstanding the said order of the Director of Elementary Education, st eps have not been taken by the respondents, to pay the petitioner’s arrear and c urrent salaries and he is made to serve the Government without any remuneration. 4. Mr. SK Das, learned standing counsel refers to the counter affidavit fil ed on 4.6.2010 by the Director of Elementary Education and points out that after the petitioner’s suspension period was regularized, steps have been initiated f or payment of the arrear salaries to the petitioner and only because of want of sanction, his dues could not be disbursed by the Director. 5. A perusal of the materials on record shows that although the petitioner was suspended between February, 1997 to February, 2009, the suspended period was subsequently regularized through the order passed on 7th August, 2002 by the Di rector of Elementary Education. Thus the petitioner since then is serving as the UDA on regular basis without any disruption of service as his suspension period was regularized. In the circumstances, it is not understood as to how the petit ioner is made to serve without ensuring payment of his salaries. 6. The averments in the counter affidavit shows the perfunctory manner of p rocessing the salary claim of the petitioner since nearly a decade has gone by a fter the order regularizing the suspension period was passed by the Director of Elementary Education on 7.8.2002. Even today the process is said to be continuin g and the petitioner is made to serve without wages. 7. In view of above, I consider it appropriate to direct the official respo ndents to expedite and complete the process within 3 months from the date of rec eipt of this order to ensure disbursal of current and arrear salaries (if not al ready paid) due to the petitioner in pursuant to the order passed by the Directo r of Elementary Education on 7.8.2002. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The case is allowed with the above direction. A copy of this order be fu rnished to Mr. SK Das, the learned standing counsel, for necessary communication .